I’d rather not say, for the sake of my anonymity—something which is important to me because this:
However, I would also like to note that Leverage 1.0 has historically been on the receiving end of substantial levels of bullying, harassment, needless cruelty, public ridicule, and more by people who were not engaged in any legitimate epistemic activity. I do not think this is OK. I intend to call out this behavior directly when I see it. I would ask that others do so as well.
is a real concern. I’ve seen it firsthand—people associated with Leverage being ostracized, bullied, and made to feel very unwelcome and uncomfortable at social events and in online spaces by people in nearby communities, including this one.
It seems like a real risk to me that any amount of personal information I give will be used to discover my identity, and I’ll be subject to the same.
Which, by the way, is despicable, and I find it alarming that only one person (besides Kerry) in this thread has acknowledged this behavior pattern.
I said in another comment that I didn’t make an alt to come here and “defend Leverage”—this instance is the exception to that. These people are human beings.
If people are being bullied, that’s extremely bad, and if you see that and call it out you’re doing a noble thing.
But all I’ve seen in this thread—I can’t comment on e.g. what happens in person in the Bay Area, since that’s thousands of miles away from where I am—is people saying negative things about Leverage Research itself and not about individuals associated with it, with the single exception of the person in charge of Leverage, who fairly credibly deserves some criticism if the negative things being said about the organization are correct.
Bullying people is cruel and harmful. I’m not so sure there’s anything wrong with “bullying” an organization. Especially if that organization is doing harm, or if there is good reason to think it is likely to do harm in the future.
I’ve seen someone from a different org, but with a similar valence in the community, get treated quite poorly at a party when they let their association be known. It was like the questioner stopped seeing them as a person with feelings and only treated them as an extension of the organization. I felt gross watching it and regret not saying anything at the time.
It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that Leveragers faced the same thing, and also that some members lumped some legitimate criticisms or refusals to play along in with this unacceptable treatment, because that’s a human thing to do.
ETA: I talked to the person in question and they don’t remember this, so apparently it made a bigger emotional impression on me than them (they remembered a different convo at the same event that seemed like the same kind of thing, but didn’t report it being particularly unpleasant). I maintain that if I were regularly subject to what I saw it would have been quite painful, and imagine that to be true for at least some other people.
I’m not so sure there’s anything wrong with “bullying” an organization.
There’s a pragmatic question of building reliable theory of what’s going on, which requires access to the facts. Even trivial inconvenience for those who have the facts in communicating them does serious damage to this process’s ability to understand what’s going on.
The most valuable facts are those that contradict the established narrative of the theory, they can actually be relevant for improving it, for there is no improvement without change. Seeing a narrative that contradicts the facts someone has is already disheartening, so everything else that could possibly be done to make sharing easier, and not make it harder, should absolutely be done.
Yes, but imagine for a second that you worked at Leverage, and you’re reading this thread (noting that I’d be surprised if several people from both 1.0 and 2.0 were not). Do you think that, whether they had a negative experience or a positive experience, they would feel comfortable commenting on that here?
(This is the relevant impact of the things mentioned in my previous comment.)
No. Of course not. Because the overpowering narrative in this thread, regardless of the goals or intentions of the OP, is “Leverage was/is a cult”.
No one accused of being in a cult is going to come into the community of their accusers and say a word. Of course, with the exception of two people in 2.0 who have posted here, one of which is a representative who has been accused of plotting to coerce and manipulate victims, and the other of which has been falsely accused of trying to hide their identity in the thread.
And this is despite Leverage’s efforts to become more legible and transparent.
If someone who worked there had negative experiences as a result, then, of course, they may not want to post publicly in an environment where the initiative that they once put their time, energy, and effort into is being so highly criticized, and in some cases, again, blatantly accused of being a literal cult or what I would call a “strawman’s term” for a cult. They also may not want to air their concerns with their ex-employers in this public setting.
And on the other hand, if someone who worked there had positive experiences, they are left to watch as, once again, the discourse of this group disallows them from giving input without figuratively burning them at the stake for supporting something that they personally experienced and had no issue with.
And these are just the first few things that came to mind for me when considering why they may not be present in this conversation.
My main concern here is that this space doesn’t allow them to speak AT ALL without serious repercussions, and that is caused by the pattern I mentioned in my comment above. Because of this, the discourse around Leverage Research on this thread (while there has still been new information exchanged, and I do not want to discount that) is doomed to be an echo chamber between people who are degrees (plural) away from whatever the truth may be.
This is my takeaway from this entire thread, and it’s a shame.
(Sorry for using the words “of course” “accused”/”accusers” etc so frequently—I am tired.)
I don’t know how comfortable any given person would feel commenting here. I do know that Kerry Vaughan, who is with Leverage now, has evidently felt comfortable enough to comment. I have no idea who you are but it seems fairly apparent that you have some association with Leverage, and you evidently feel comfortable enough to comment.
You say that one of those people (presumably meaning Kerry) “has been accused of plotting to coerce and manipulate victims”. I can’t find anywhere where anyone has made any such accusation. I can’t find any instance of “coerce” or any of its forms other than in your comment above. I find two other instances of “manipulate” and related words; one is specifically about Geoff Anders (who so far as I know is not the same person as Kerry Vaughan) and the other is talking generally about psychological manipulation and doesn’t make any accusations about specific people.
You say that the other person (presumably meaning you) “has been falsely accused of trying to hide their identity”, but so far as I can make out you are openly trying to hide your identity (on the grounds that if people could tell who you are then you would be mistreated on account of being associated with Leverage).
(I have to say that I’m a bit confused by the anonymity thing. Are you concerned that if you were onymous then people “in real life” would read what you say here, realise that you’re associated with Leverage, and mistreat you? Or that if you were onymous then people here would recognize your name, realise that you’re associated with Leverage, and mistreat you? Or something else? The first would make sense only if “in real life” you were concealing whatever associations you have with Leverage, which I have to say would itself be a bit concerning; the second would make sense only if knowing your name would make people in this thread think you more closely associated with Leverage than they already think you, and unless you’re Literal Geoff Anders or something that seems a little unlikely. And I’m not sure what “something else” might be.)
Saying that someone is in a cult (though I note that most people have been pretty careful not to use quite that terminology) isn’t an accusation. Not at the person in question, anyway. For sure it’s the sort of thing that many people will find uncomfortable. But what’s uncomfortable here is the content of the claim itself, no? So what less-bullying thing would you prefer someone to do, if they are concerned that an organization other people around them might join is worryingly cult-like? Should they just not say anything, because saying “X is cult-like” is bullying? That policy means never being able to give warning to people who might be getting ensnared by an actual cult. What’s the alternative?
Saying that someone is in a cult (though I note that most people have been pretty careful not to use quite that terminology) isn’t an accusation. Not at the person in question, anyway.
“You are in a cult” is absolutely an accusation directed at the person. I can understand moral reasons why someone might wish for a world in which people assigned blame differently, and technical reasons why this feature of the discourse makes purely descriptive discussions unhelpfully fraught, but none of that changes the empirical fact that “You are in a cult” functions as an accusation in practice, especially when delivered in a public forum. I expect you’ll agree if you recall specific conversations-besides-this-one where you’ve heard someone claim that another participant is in a cult.
Maybe you’re right. So, same question as for ooverthinkk: suppose you think some organization that people you know belong to is a cult, or has some of the same bad features as cults. What should you do?
(It seems to me that ooverthinkk feels that at least some of what is being said in this thread about Leverage is morally wrong, and I hope there’s some underlying principle that’s less overreaching than “never say that anything is cult-like” and less special-pleading than “never say bad things about Leverage”—but I don’t yet understand what that underlying principle is.)
The first person was Larissa, the second person was Kerry.
The “anonymity thing” does not fall under the first category. I’d just prefer, as I stated before, not to be targeted “in real life” for my views on this thread.
The “bullying” that I’m referring to happened/happens outside of this thread, and is in no way limited to instances of people being accused of being “in a cult”.
D’oh! I’d forgotten that Larissa had commented here too. My apologies.
As I’ve said, I have no knowledge of any bullying that may or may not be occurring elsewhere (especially in person in the Bay Area), and if anyone’s getting bullied then that’s bad. If that isn’t common knowledge, then there’s a problem. But the things in this thread that you’ve taken exception to don’t seem to me to come close to bullying. (Obviously, though, they could be part of a general pattern of excessive hostility to all things Leverage.)
Do you think OP was wrong to post what they did? If so, is that because you think the things they’ve said about Leverage are factually wrong, or because you think people who think they see an organization behaving in potentially harmful ways shouldn’t say so, or what?
I’d rather not say, for the sake of my anonymity—something which is important to me because this:
is a real concern. I’ve seen it firsthand—people associated with Leverage being ostracized, bullied, and made to feel very unwelcome and uncomfortable at social events and in online spaces by people in nearby communities, including this one.
It seems like a real risk to me that any amount of personal information I give will be used to discover my identity, and I’ll be subject to the same.
Which, by the way, is despicable, and I find it alarming that only one person (besides Kerry) in this thread has acknowledged this behavior pattern.
I said in another comment that I didn’t make an alt to come here and “defend Leverage”—this instance is the exception to that. These people are human beings.
(quote from Kerry’s comment: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kz9zMgWB5C27Pmdkh/common-knowledge-facts-about-leverage-research-1-0-1?commentId=hqDXAtk6cnqDStkGC)
(I’m aware that this comment is intense; @gjm that intensity is not intended to be directed at you, but at the situation as a whole.)
If people are being bullied, that’s extremely bad, and if you see that and call it out you’re doing a noble thing.
But all I’ve seen in this thread—I can’t comment on e.g. what happens in person in the Bay Area, since that’s thousands of miles away from where I am—is people saying negative things about Leverage Research itself and not about individuals associated with it, with the single exception of the person in charge of Leverage, who fairly credibly deserves some criticism if the negative things being said about the organization are correct.
Bullying people is cruel and harmful. I’m not so sure there’s anything wrong with “bullying” an organization. Especially if that organization is doing harm, or if there is good reason to think it is likely to do harm in the future.
I’ve seen someone from a different org, but with a similar valence in the community, get treated quite poorly at a party when they let their association be known. It was like the questioner stopped seeing them as a person with feelings and only treated them as an extension of the organization. I felt gross watching it and regret not saying anything at the time.
It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that Leveragers faced the same thing, and also that some members lumped some legitimate criticisms or refusals to play along in with this unacceptable treatment, because that’s a human thing to do.
ETA: I talked to the person in question and they don’t remember this, so apparently it made a bigger emotional impression on me than them (they remembered a different convo at the same event that seemed like the same kind of thing, but didn’t report it being particularly unpleasant). I maintain that if I were regularly subject to what I saw it would have been quite painful, and imagine that to be true for at least some other people.
There’s a pragmatic question of building reliable theory of what’s going on, which requires access to the facts. Even trivial inconvenience for those who have the facts in communicating them does serious damage to this process’s ability to understand what’s going on.
The most valuable facts are those that contradict the established narrative of the theory, they can actually be relevant for improving it, for there is no improvement without change. Seeing a narrative that contradicts the facts someone has is already disheartening, so everything else that could possibly be done to make sharing easier, and not make it harder, should absolutely be done.
Yes, but imagine for a second that you worked at Leverage, and you’re reading this thread (noting that I’d be surprised if several people from both 1.0 and 2.0 were not). Do you think that, whether they had a negative experience or a positive experience, they would feel comfortable commenting on that here?
(This is the relevant impact of the things mentioned in my previous comment.)
No. Of course not. Because the overpowering narrative in this thread, regardless of the goals or intentions of the OP, is “Leverage was/is a cult”.
No one accused of being in a cult is going to come into the community of their accusers and say a word. Of course, with the exception of two people in 2.0 who have posted here, one of which is a representative who has been accused of plotting to coerce and manipulate victims, and the other of which has been falsely accused of trying to hide their identity in the thread.
And this is despite Leverage’s efforts to become more legible and transparent.
If someone who worked there had negative experiences as a result, then, of course, they may not want to post publicly in an environment where the initiative that they once put their time, energy, and effort into is being so highly criticized, and in some cases, again, blatantly accused of being a literal cult or what I would call a “strawman’s term” for a cult. They also may not want to air their concerns with their ex-employers in this public setting.
And on the other hand, if someone who worked there had positive experiences, they are left to watch as, once again, the discourse of this group disallows them from giving input without figuratively burning them at the stake for supporting something that they personally experienced and had no issue with.
And these are just the first few things that came to mind for me when considering why they may not be present in this conversation.
My main concern here is that this space doesn’t allow them to speak AT ALL without serious repercussions, and that is caused by the pattern I mentioned in my comment above. Because of this, the discourse around Leverage Research on this thread (while there has still been new information exchanged, and I do not want to discount that) is doomed to be an echo chamber between people who are degrees (plural) away from whatever the truth may be.
This is my takeaway from this entire thread, and it’s a shame.
(Sorry for using the words “of course” “accused”/”accusers” etc so frequently—I am tired.)
I don’t know how comfortable any given person would feel commenting here. I do know that Kerry Vaughan, who is with Leverage now, has evidently felt comfortable enough to comment. I have no idea who you are but it seems fairly apparent that you have some association with Leverage, and you evidently feel comfortable enough to comment.
You say that one of those people (presumably meaning Kerry) “has been accused of plotting to coerce and manipulate victims”. I can’t find anywhere where anyone has made any such accusation. I can’t find any instance of “coerce” or any of its forms other than in your comment above. I find two other instances of “manipulate” and related words; one is specifically about Geoff Anders (who so far as I know is not the same person as Kerry Vaughan) and the other is talking generally about psychological manipulation and doesn’t make any accusations about specific people.
You say that the other person (presumably meaning you) “has been falsely accused of trying to hide their identity”, but so far as I can make out you are openly trying to hide your identity (on the grounds that if people could tell who you are then you would be mistreated on account of being associated with Leverage).
(I have to say that I’m a bit confused by the anonymity thing. Are you concerned that if you were onymous then people “in real life” would read what you say here, realise that you’re associated with Leverage, and mistreat you? Or that if you were onymous then people here would recognize your name, realise that you’re associated with Leverage, and mistreat you? Or something else? The first would make sense only if “in real life” you were concealing whatever associations you have with Leverage, which I have to say would itself be a bit concerning; the second would make sense only if knowing your name would make people in this thread think you more closely associated with Leverage than they already think you, and unless you’re Literal Geoff Anders or something that seems a little unlikely. And I’m not sure what “something else” might be.)
Saying that someone is in a cult (though I note that most people have been pretty careful not to use quite that terminology) isn’t an accusation. Not at the person in question, anyway. For sure it’s the sort of thing that many people will find uncomfortable. But what’s uncomfortable here is the content of the claim itself, no? So what less-bullying thing would you prefer someone to do, if they are concerned that an organization other people around them might join is worryingly cult-like? Should they just not say anything, because saying “X is cult-like” is bullying? That policy means never being able to give warning to people who might be getting ensnared by an actual cult. What’s the alternative?
No comment on your larger point but
“You are in a cult” is absolutely an accusation directed at the person. I can understand moral reasons why someone might wish for a world in which people assigned blame differently, and technical reasons why this feature of the discourse makes purely descriptive discussions unhelpfully fraught, but none of that changes the empirical fact that “You are in a cult” functions as an accusation in practice, especially when delivered in a public forum. I expect you’ll agree if you recall specific conversations-besides-this-one where you’ve heard someone claim that another participant is in a cult.
Maybe you’re right. So, same question as for ooverthinkk: suppose you think some organization that people you know belong to is a cult, or has some of the same bad features as cults. What should you do?
(It seems to me that ooverthinkk feels that at least some of what is being said in this thread about Leverage is morally wrong, and I hope there’s some underlying principle that’s less overreaching than “never say that anything is cult-like” and less special-pleading than “never say bad things about Leverage”—but I don’t yet understand what that underlying principle is.)
(edit: moved to the correct reply area)
The first person was Larissa, the second person was Kerry.
The “anonymity thing” does not fall under the first category. I’d just prefer, as I stated before, not to be targeted “in real life” for my views on this thread.
The “bullying” that I’m referring to happened/happens outside of this thread, and is in no way limited to instances of people being accused of being “in a cult”.
D’oh! I’d forgotten that Larissa had commented here too. My apologies.
As I’ve said, I have no knowledge of any bullying that may or may not be occurring elsewhere (especially in person in the Bay Area), and if anyone’s getting bullied then that’s bad. If that isn’t common knowledge, then there’s a problem. But the things in this thread that you’ve taken exception to don’t seem to me to come close to bullying. (Obviously, though, they could be part of a general pattern of excessive hostility to all things Leverage.)
Do you think OP was wrong to post what they did? If so, is that because you think the things they’ve said about Leverage are factually wrong, or because you think people who think they see an organization behaving in potentially harmful ways shouldn’t say so, or what?