Hi! I’m Michael aka Rai, one of the organizers involved. Here’s my take.
Roland creeps me out in a S1 way. I am not comfortable holding conversations (especially about personal things) around him. One day, I realized that I am not the only person feeling uncomfortable about Roland.
One of my chief aims as the current de-facto organizer of Rationality Zurich is to have a social group which is pleasant for the people involved, and I have come to believe that Roland’s presence at the meetups is net negative, especially (but not exclusively) for the kinds of things which I would like to do more of at Rationality Zurich. Circling is a good example of those things.
I think there are ways Roland could change that would make me feel less creeped out, and maybe reverse the decision (mine was to ban Roland from meetups I organize) - roughly, more social intelligence or empathy. But fixing that is not my responsibility.
Hello Michael, I’m taking your criticism at face value here, although it doesn’t add up with what Marko told me. He claimed that he was the one that convinced you to ban me. Anyways if social intelligence or empathy is something I lack that might be things that can be hard to fix, first because to a certain extent those are innate and second since no one in Rationality Zürich or EA provided any actionable advice or feedback.
Anyways if social intelligence or empathy is something I lack that might be things that can be hard to fix, first because to a certain extent those are innate
If that’s the case then banning is the correct cause of action. Banning is the tool that’s used when fixing is available option.
When it comes to your interaction here, I see that you claim that Marko said that he isn’t an EA which he denies and that he told you he convinced Michael which also wasn’t his position.
Both of those behaviors are social moves that make it unpleasant to interact with you and if you interact on a regular basis like that, it’s a reason for the people in Zurich not to want you to be around.
I (somewhat charitbly) believe that both of these were honest misunderstandings on Roland’s part and don’t think he has been intentionally untruthful anywhere.
I don’t think he’s intentionally lying. That would be relatively easy to fix from his side. It’s likely rather about listening in a way where he understands where the other person is coming from.
The pattern about not listening well also fits with what you said about fondness for conspiracy thinking (9/11 truth).
Hi! I’m Michael aka Rai, one of the organizers involved. Here’s my take.
Roland creeps me out in a S1 way. I am not comfortable holding conversations (especially about personal things) around him. One day, I realized that I am not the only person feeling uncomfortable about Roland.
One of my chief aims as the current de-facto organizer of Rationality Zurich is to have a social group which is pleasant for the people involved, and I have come to believe that Roland’s presence at the meetups is net negative, especially (but not exclusively) for the kinds of things which I would like to do more of at Rationality Zurich. Circling is a good example of those things.
I think there are ways Roland could change that would make me feel less creeped out, and maybe reverse the decision (mine was to ban Roland from meetups I organize) - roughly, more social intelligence or empathy. But fixing that is not my responsibility.
Hello Michael, I’m taking your criticism at face value here, although it doesn’t add up with what Marko told me. He claimed that he was the one that convinced you to ban me. Anyways if social intelligence or empathy is something I lack that might be things that can be hard to fix, first because to a certain extent those are innate and second since no one in Rationality Zürich or EA provided any actionable advice or feedback.
If that’s the case then banning is the correct cause of action. Banning is the tool that’s used when fixing is available option.
When it comes to your interaction here, I see that you claim that Marko said that he isn’t an EA which he denies and that he told you he convinced Michael which also wasn’t his position.
Both of those behaviors are social moves that make it unpleasant to interact with you and if you interact on a regular basis like that, it’s a reason for the people in Zurich not to want you to be around.
There is a difference of claims relating to who said what. But why do you automatically assume that I’m the one not being truthful?
I (somewhat charitbly) believe that both of these were honest misunderstandings on Roland’s part and don’t think he has been intentionally untruthful anywhere.
I don’t think he’s intentionally lying. That would be relatively easy to fix from his side. It’s likely rather about listening in a way where he understands where the other person is coming from.
The pattern about not listening well also fits with what you said about fondness for conspiracy thinking (9/11 truth).
ChristianKL please see my reply here