Don’t forget that much of the inner circle actually draws a paycheck from the organizations members are encouraged to donate to, and supposedly a fairly large one at that, and that the discussion of how much to donate is framed in terms of averting the destruction of the human race.
That and the polyamory commune are the two sketchiest things IMO, since it shows that the inner circle is materially and directly benefiting from the “altruism” / “rationality” of lower ranking members.
This is a good website, mostly good people on it, but there’s also an impression that there are questionable dealings going on behind the scenes.
much of the inner circle actually draws a paycheck from the organizations members are encouraged to donate to
Would LW be improved if paid employees/consultants of those organizations were barred from membership? (I do realize there are other ways to address this concern, and I don’t mean to suggest otherwise… for example, we could re-institute the moratorium on discussing those organizations, or a limited moratorium on fundraising activitiies here, or various other things. I’m just curious about your opinion about that specific solution.)
That and the polyamory commune are the two sketchiest things IMO
I get a kick out of this, because my social circle is largely polyamorous but would mostly consider LW a charming bunch of complete nutjobs on other grounds. Polyamory really isn’t all that uncommon in communities anchored around high-tech development/elite tech schools, IME.
Would LW be improved if paid employees/consultants of those organizations were barred from membership?
No, I suspect it would die. Actionable suggestion though: some kind of “badge” / note (along the lines of the “mod” or “author” tag you get in Disqus, for example). When I worked for a company with user forums it was policy that all staff had badges on their avatars and you should not post from a non-staff account while employed by the company.
I get a kick out of this, because my social circle is largely polyamorous but would mostly consider LW a charming bunch of complete nutjobs on other grounds. Polyamory really isn’t all that uncommon in communities anchored around high-tech development/elite tech schools, IME.
That is very surprising, very different from my experiences. My social circle comes mainly from the University of Cambridge and the London tech scene; I am friends with several furries, more transsexuals, and have had dinner with the maintainer of the BDSM FAQ. Polyamory still seems fucking weird (not offensive or evil, but naive and pretentious, and correlated with what I can probably best summarize as the stoner stereotype). I’ve met a couple of openly poly people and they were perfectly friendly and had the best of intentions but I wouldn’t trust them to organize my closet, yet alone the survival of humanity.
I originally took Moss_Piglet to imply that the leadership were recruiting groupies from LW to have sex with. That I would find very disturbing and offputting. Assuming that’s not an issue, I think the weirdness of the polyamory would be amply countered by evidence of general competence / life success.
Polyamory still seems fucking weird (not offensive or evil, but naive and pretentious, and correlated with what I can probably best summarize as the stoner stereotype). I’ve met a couple of openly poly people and they were perfectly friendly and had the best of intentions but I wouldn’t trust them to organize my closet, yet alone the survival of humanity.
Wth? You seem very prejudiced. What makes people who have multiple relationships this much less trustworthy than ‘normal’ people to you (that you wouldn’t even trust them to organize your closet)?
This whole subject is about prejudice; we judge organizations for their cultlike characteristics without investigating them in detail.
What makes people who have multiple relationships this much less trustworthy than ‘normal’ people to you (that you wouldn’t even trust them to organize your closet)?
I think I was unclear: the implication runs in the opposite direction. All the specific poly individuals I’ve met are people I wouldn’t trust to organize my closet, in terms of general life competence (e.g. ability to hold down a job, finish projects they start, keep promises to friends). As a result, when I find out that someone is poly, I consider this evidence (in the Bayesian sense) that they’re incompetent, the same way I would adjust my estimate of someone’s competence if I discovered that they had particular academic qualifications or used a particular drug. (Obviously all these factors are screened off if I have direct evidence about their actual competence level).
Well, I would certainly agree with this. The poly folk I know in their 40s are as a class more successful in their relationships than the poly folk I know in their 20s.
Of course, this is true of the mono folk I know, also.
Which is what I would expect if experience having relationships increased one’s ability to do so successfully.
That is very surprising, very different from my experiences.
It also agrees with the experience from my real-life social circles, which are dominated by university people from the Helsinki region. Poly seems to be treated as roughly the same as homosexuality: unusual but not particularly noteworthy one way or the other. Treatments in the popular press (articles about some particular poly triad who’s agreed to be interviewed, etc.) are also generally positive.
(nods) Fair enough. My experience is limited to the U.S. in this context. I agree that “recruiting groupies to have sex with,” if I understand what you mean by the phrase, would be disturbing and offputting. Moss_Piglet appears to believe that polyamory is in and of itself a bad sign, independent of whether any groupies are being recruited. Beyond that, I decline to speculate.
I’m just curious about your opinion about that specific solution.
The ethics of conflicts of interest in the media are pretty well-trodden ground; you could adapt any journalistic ethics document into a comprehensive do’s and don’ts list. Do state your financial interests clearly and publicly, don’t mix advertising and information content, etc.
It’s not foolproof and bias is universal, but a conflict of interest on the scale of one’s career and sex life is something a rationalist ought to be at least a little concerned about.
I get a kick out of this, because my social circle is largely polyamorous but would mostly consider LW a charming bunch of complete nutjobs on other grounds. Polyamory really isn’t all that uncommon in communities anchored around high-tech development/elite tech schools, IME.
That may well be true, but it makes little difference. The collapse of sexual mores is directly, IMO causally, linked with decreased stability and fertility; letting it take hold in the highest IQ sections of the population is a recipe for disaster. Engaging in that sort of behavior is strong evidence against a person’s character as a leader.
Engaging in that sort of behavior is strong evidence against a person’s character as a leader.
That’s a silly assertion. First because it’s obviously only true from the point of view of a specific morality. And second, because it ignores the empirical fact that, in full compliance with biology, powerful male leaders usually bed many women.
Do state your financial interests clearly and publicly, don’t mix advertising and information content, etc.
Actually, that sounds like a great idea. I would absolutely endorse a policy along those lines.
The collapse of sexual mores is directly, IMO causally, linked with decreased stability and fertility; letting it take hold in the highest IQ sections of the population is a recipe for disaster. Engaging in that sort of behavior is strong evidence against a person’s character as a leader.
Ah, I see.
Sure, if I believed that failing to conform to previously established sexual mores led to decreased stability, I would no doubt agree that the poly aspects of LW and its various parent organizations were troubling.
Similar things are true of my college living group, the theater group I perform with, etc.
Come to that, I suppose similar things are true of my state government, which accepts my marriage to my husband as a family despite this being a clear violation of pre-existing sexual mores, and of large chunks of my country, which accepts marriages between people of different skin colors as families despite this being a clear violation of the sexual mores of a few decades ago.
I’d prefer not to completely derail this into a political/moral argument, since the issue at hand is a bit more relevant. Since you are, as you admit, fairly invested in your position there is little purpose to debate on this point except to distract from the main issue.
Sure; I have no interest in debating with you whether polyamory, homosexuality, miscegenation and other violations of sexual mores really are harmful. As you say, it would be a distraction.
My point was that if they were, it would make sense to object to an organization on the grounds that its leadership approves of/engages in harmful sexual-more-violating activities. What would not make sense is to differentially object to that organization on those grounds.
That is, accepting/endorsing/engaging sexual-more-violating activities might make LW’s parent organizations dangerous, but it doesn’t make them any more dangerous than many far-more-mainstream organizations that do the same things (like my college living group, the theater group I perform with, etc).
If this one of the two sketchiest things about the organization, as you suggest, it sounds to me like the organization is pretty darned close to the mainstream, which seems rather opposed to the point lmm was trying to make, and which I originally inferred you were aligning with.
Don’t forget that much of the inner circle actually draws a paycheck from the organizations members are encouraged to donate to, and supposedly a fairly large one at that, and that the discussion of how much to donate is framed in terms of averting the destruction of the human race.
That and the polyamory commune are the two sketchiest things IMO, since it shows that the inner circle is materially and directly benefiting from the “altruism” / “rationality” of lower ranking members.
This is a good website, mostly good people on it, but there’s also an impression that there are questionable dealings going on behind the scenes.
Would LW be improved if paid employees/consultants of those organizations were barred from membership? (I do realize there are other ways to address this concern, and I don’t mean to suggest otherwise… for example, we could re-institute the moratorium on discussing those organizations, or a limited moratorium on fundraising activitiies here, or various other things. I’m just curious about your opinion about that specific solution.)
I get a kick out of this, because my social circle is largely polyamorous but would mostly consider LW a charming bunch of complete nutjobs on other grounds. Polyamory really isn’t all that uncommon in communities anchored around high-tech development/elite tech schools, IME.
No, I suspect it would die. Actionable suggestion though: some kind of “badge” / note (along the lines of the “mod” or “author” tag you get in Disqus, for example). When I worked for a company with user forums it was policy that all staff had badges on their avatars and you should not post from a non-staff account while employed by the company.
That is very surprising, very different from my experiences. My social circle comes mainly from the University of Cambridge and the London tech scene; I am friends with several furries, more transsexuals, and have had dinner with the maintainer of the BDSM FAQ. Polyamory still seems fucking weird (not offensive or evil, but naive and pretentious, and correlated with what I can probably best summarize as the stoner stereotype). I’ve met a couple of openly poly people and they were perfectly friendly and had the best of intentions but I wouldn’t trust them to organize my closet, yet alone the survival of humanity.
I originally took Moss_Piglet to imply that the leadership were recruiting groupies from LW to have sex with. That I would find very disturbing and offputting. Assuming that’s not an issue, I think the weirdness of the polyamory would be amply countered by evidence of general competence / life success.
Wth? You seem very prejudiced. What makes people who have multiple relationships this much less trustworthy than ‘normal’ people to you (that you wouldn’t even trust them to organize your closet)?
This whole subject is about prejudice; we judge organizations for their cultlike characteristics without investigating them in detail.
I think I was unclear: the implication runs in the opposite direction. All the specific poly individuals I’ve met are people I wouldn’t trust to organize my closet, in terms of general life competence (e.g. ability to hold down a job, finish projects they start, keep promises to friends). As a result, when I find out that someone is poly, I consider this evidence (in the Bayesian sense) that they’re incompetent, the same way I would adjust my estimate of someone’s competence if I discovered that they had particular academic qualifications or used a particular drug. (Obviously all these factors are screened off if I have direct evidence about their actual competence level).
To throw in a possibly-relevant factor: age.
It seems to me that polyamory in early twenties is quite different from polyamory in late forties.
Well, I would certainly agree with this. The poly folk I know in their 40s are as a class more successful in their relationships than the poly folk I know in their 20s.
Of course, this is true of the mono folk I know, also.
Which is what I would expect if experience having relationships increased one’s ability to do so successfully.
It also agrees with the experience from my real-life social circles, which are dominated by university people from the Helsinki region. Poly seems to be treated as roughly the same as homosexuality: unusual but not particularly noteworthy one way or the other. Treatments in the popular press (articles about some particular poly triad who’s agreed to be interviewed, etc.) are also generally positive.
(nods) Fair enough. My experience is limited to the U.S. in this context.
I agree that “recruiting groupies to have sex with,” if I understand what you mean by the phrase, would be disturbing and offputting.
Moss_Piglet appears to believe that polyamory is in and of itself a bad sign, independent of whether any groupies are being recruited. Beyond that, I decline to speculate.
The ethics of conflicts of interest in the media are pretty well-trodden ground; you could adapt any journalistic ethics document into a comprehensive do’s and don’ts list. Do state your financial interests clearly and publicly, don’t mix advertising and information content, etc.
It’s not foolproof and bias is universal, but a conflict of interest on the scale of one’s career and sex life is something a rationalist ought to be at least a little concerned about.
That may well be true, but it makes little difference. The collapse of sexual mores is directly, IMO causally, linked with decreased stability and fertility; letting it take hold in the highest IQ sections of the population is a recipe for disaster. Engaging in that sort of behavior is strong evidence against a person’s character as a leader.
That’s a silly assertion. First because it’s obviously only true from the point of view of a specific morality. And second, because it ignores the empirical fact that, in full compliance with biology, powerful male leaders usually bed many women.
Actually, that sounds like a great idea. I would absolutely endorse a policy along those lines.
Ah, I see.
Sure, if I believed that failing to conform to previously established sexual mores led to decreased stability, I would no doubt agree that the poly aspects of LW and its various parent organizations were troubling.
Similar things are true of my college living group, the theater group I perform with, etc.
Come to that, I suppose similar things are true of my state government, which accepts my marriage to my husband as a family despite this being a clear violation of pre-existing sexual mores, and of large chunks of my country, which accepts marriages between people of different skin colors as families despite this being a clear violation of the sexual mores of a few decades ago.
I’d prefer not to completely derail this into a political/moral argument, since the issue at hand is a bit more relevant. Since you are, as you admit, fairly invested in your position there is little purpose to debate on this point except to distract from the main issue.
Sure; I have no interest in debating with you whether polyamory, homosexuality, miscegenation and other violations of sexual mores really are harmful. As you say, it would be a distraction.
My point was that if they were, it would make sense to object to an organization on the grounds that its leadership approves of/engages in harmful sexual-more-violating activities. What would not make sense is to differentially object to that organization on those grounds.
That is, accepting/endorsing/engaging sexual-more-violating activities might make LW’s parent organizations dangerous, but it doesn’t make them any more dangerous than many far-more-mainstream organizations that do the same things (like my college living group, the theater group I perform with, etc).
If this one of the two sketchiest things about the organization, as you suggest, it sounds to me like the organization is pretty darned close to the mainstream, which seems rather opposed to the point lmm was trying to make, and which I originally inferred you were aligning with.
Don’t forget treating the writings of the charismatic founder as a sacred text and ritually quoting them :-)