Also, I’d only skimmed it when I moved it back to your personal blog. Rereading I notice you said
It is not clear that posting on LesserWrong is the right way to communicate such experiences, though if it’s not just let me know and I’ll update my content to better reflect what the site is looking for.
Yeah, so the personal blogs are for anyone to write what they please. In general I’m happy to hear about the sorts of info that I’m biased not to hear about (like this). For example, I just gave someone low-confidence, strongly negative feedback on a significant project in large part because I expected them to not get that sort of feedback where it existed (and also because I believed them to care about the truth of the matter).
It’s hard to know how much to trust your impressions from the lack of details and your anonymity, but sometimes the data you get is just going to be like that shrugs. My initial guess is that, while it’s hard to update a great deal on a single data point, it is valable so that patterns can emerge over time. The post does feel genuinely written in good faith, so I’ll keep it as a data point—thanks. Regardless of what community I might be in, it’s good to have little nudges about the sorts of biases I’m naturally subject to regarding overly trusting those who are high status.
Thank you! I apologize about the confusion. Duly noted for the future!
No worries :-)
Also, I’d only skimmed it when I moved it back to your personal blog. Rereading I notice you said
Yeah, so the personal blogs are for anyone to write what they please. In general I’m happy to hear about the sorts of info that I’m biased not to hear about (like this). For example, I just gave someone low-confidence, strongly negative feedback on a significant project in large part because I expected them to not get that sort of feedback where it existed (and also because I believed them to care about the truth of the matter).
It’s hard to know how much to trust your impressions from the lack of details and your anonymity, but sometimes the data you get is just going to be like that shrugs. My initial guess is that, while it’s hard to update a great deal on a single data point, it is valable so that patterns can emerge over time. The post does feel genuinely written in good faith, so I’ll keep it as a data point—thanks. Regardless of what community I might be in, it’s good to have little nudges about the sorts of biases I’m naturally subject to regarding overly trusting those who are high status.