Me telling Aubrey de Gray not to do donation matching because it’s manipulative pandering.
Aubrey thinking to himself: I’m telling the female researchers to sleep with people for donations, and you’re worried about donation matching!?
I don’t like cancel culture, but I do think a culture shift in the science/academic field is necessary, since it is quite difficult to navigate for a lot of women due to many unwanted sexual advances they have to deal with.
I dated a PhD in a related field for a while who was in her twenties at the time, when she went to conferences she was regularly being sent very forward emails from male colleagues in their 60-70’s wanting to have sex with her, which made her very uncomfortable. Lot’s of very bad stories as well from my university.
jfc
There are some reasonable comments near the bottom of the reddit thread. They seem to get downvoted.
I read a lot of comments about the AdG issue and didn’t see a single one making the same point as my first reaction that I wrote before even reading the accusations.
It’s not the same kind of thing as Harvey Weinstein doing it. Weinstein never fundraised off how he was a great intellectual focused on The Cause. AdG’s harassment seems to be milder than Weinstein’s but it conflicts more with AdG’s image/marketing. It’s a greater betrayal from AdG. He claimed to be dedicated to a great cause and to prioritize it above petty concerns including riches; he was lying.
It reminds me of The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand:
The Gazette [newspaper] was controlled by the powers that had framed Mulligan. Wynand said nothing. He merely put in order in his mind such items of information he possessed as would blow the Gazette into hell. His job would be blown with it, but that did not matter. His decision contradicted every rule he had laid down for his career. But he did not think. It was one of the rare explosions that hit him at times, throwing him beyond caution, making of him a creature possessed by the single impulse to have his way, because the rightness of his way was so blindingly total. But he knew that the destruction of the Gazette would be only a first step. It was not enough to save Mulligan.
For three years Wynand had kept one small clipping, an editorial on corruption, by the famous editor of a great newspaper. He had kept it, because it was the most beautiful tribute to integrity he had ever read. He took the clipping and went to see the great editor. He would tell him about Mulligan and together they would beat the machine.
He walked far across town, to the building of the famous paper. He had to walk. It helped to control the fury within him. He was admitted into the office of the editor—he had a way of getting admitted into places against all rules. He saw a fat man at a desk, with thin slits of eyes set close together. He did not introduce himself, but laid the clipping down on the desk and asked: “Do you remember this?” The editor glanced at the clipping, then at Wynand. It was a glance Wynand had seen before: in the eyes of the saloonkeeper who had slammed the door. “How do you expect me to remember every piece of swill I write?” asked the editor.
After a moment, Wynand said : “Thanks.” It was the only time in his life that he felt gratitude to anyone. The gratitude was genuine—a payment for a lesson he would never need again. But even the editor knew there was something very wrong in that short “Thanks,” and very frightening. He did not know that it had been an obituary on Gail Wynand.
The trouble with Aubrey is that he has the personality of a genius, with all its attendant problems, along with his actual genius. This rankles the mediocrities and grovelling soy boys, who think it’s fine to potentially set longevity and anti-aging research back by decades now that the baton is being taken by people who are much less capable (but oh so moral).
No comments seem to understand that chasing women and being a genius are incompatible. That is not what geniuses do.
Except Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged, did understand:
“Then you can judge, without asking my word for it, how much chasing of women I’ve done in my life.”
Not gonna say who’s talking or give a longer quote because of spoilers. If you haven’t read the book, nevermind. If you have, you should know what this is, or at least be able to search for the quote and read some surrounding text for reminders.
Ya. I think AdG’s lie is the kind of lie people are so used to ~everyone telling that they don’t even think of it as a lie. They think AdG has a methodology problem (chasing the wrong women / the wrong way) not a priority problem (chasing women instead of working on anti-aging).
Another way to look at this is aspirational. Sex is the sort of thing that commonly inspires internal conflict in people. The conflict is commonly characterized as intellect vs. instinct. I don’t think that characterization is right, but it’s an attempt to describe something I do think is real and common. It’s more like a conflict between a person’s explicit reasoning and their inexplicit reasoning.
Perhaps AdG intellectually/explicitly aspired to be more committed to the cause than he actually was, and wanted to inspire others to be more committed despite failing to do so himself. Doesn’t excuse lying, but is a more charitable possible interpretation of the situation.
I don’t think everyone claims to be super passionate about the cause and to prioritize it above normal life. I don’t think most politicians, CEOs or scientists cultivate that kind of reputation.
I am really dubious of the charity / cause model for lots of reasons.
I know that people also raise money for business ventures at least partly on the strength of their supposed personal commitment to the venture. But in business, personal commitment seems to take a back seat to stuff like market analysis, financials, plans, etc.
On the flip side, some money is only available to charities and would not be invested in business ventures with similar goals. Like, there are people / funds who would give money to a medical charity but not buy shares in a medical company. I think this is mostly because of bad culture/ideas, but it is the reality at this time.
AdG has publicly talked about a lot of ppl would rather invest than donate, and they come to him for advice, and he steers that investment to the right startups/labs/projects/etc, and SENS doesn’t get a ton of money but that’s sorta OK b/c of this other larger flow of money.
He tried to sound almost altruistic like he was happy being a facilitator for the cause while his own org didn’t get much money. But he was describing himself as having tons of power over other people’s careers and tons of ability to play favorites and be biased (since he isn’t transparent about what he privately tells to what investors).
And I don’t think his judgment about where to send money is actually very good. Like he thinks current cryonics stuff is fine and didn’t understand my criticisms of it in our conversation.
Not about a charitable cause specifically. But I think most people lie heavily about what actually motivates them / what their priorities are. And people are used to / expect that kind of lie in general.
Politicians commonly claim to be motivated by public service. Mostly that’s a lie; they want stuff like power & deference/respect & sex & cushy connections that will make the rest of their life easy. And mostly other people know politicians are lying about their motives.
CEOs commonly claim to be motivated by stuff like money and success for their company. I think that’s less of a lie than politicians, but still mostly a lie. I think mostly CEOds want the power & deference/respect within their company, and stuff like sex as well. And I think most people kinda know that.
Scientists claim to be motivated by progress / truth seeking in their field. I think that’s quite often a lie too, in no small measure because of problems that’ve been pointed out on FI. I think scientists commonly prioritize stuff like tenure, status/reputation, political agendas, and legacy over truth/progress. But I also think they’re somewhat better at fooling people than politicians and CEOs. Still, a large fraction of the population doesn’t trust scientists and expects that they’re lying about motivations.
People with families claim to love their family and prioritize family super high. But then neglect their kids and hurt their spouse regularly, prioritize drinking or sports or hobbies over their family etc. People kinda expect that too.
if he has done wrong, he must be punished… why are you bringing this after 10 years? SENS received $25M donation, its after effect of this… You are purposely ruining someone’s career. you are weakening real metoo movement …
i’ve seen a lot of comments re the $25M in donations. But the girls brought up the issue privately around 1.5 months ago. They then judged – probably reasonably – that SENS isn’t going to take appropriate actions based on just the private complaints.
After the initial comments (presumably from people who already followed her blog), almost all the responses to Laura Deming have been really hostile. I’ve been getting email notifications since I posted there.
Oh I see that she has disabled comments and hidden the ones that were already written. People were still posting comments this morning such as:
I have a lot of respect for Laura. And maybe I am old-fashioned. But it feels a bit disappointing when people post the contents of private emails online without permission, whatever the circumstances.
I think Laura is lucky that Aubrey de Grey has underwritten her career despite the fact that she hasn’t really produced anything.
Aubrey’s biography will be one hell of a read.
Another G down the drain. (I’m not talking about AdG!).
Who Is John Galt?
Celine seems like more of a predator to be honest.
Those are all the ones from today.
And here’s a new article:
Deming first suspected something was amiss when she received an email from de Grey in mid-June imploring her to help him reach Halioua. In March, Halioua had described him in a tweet as “an absolutely terrible human being” and de Grey had been trying to reach her via email to ask why. When she didn’t respond, he turned to Deming.
“In the course of my cleanup of my board I unfortunately discovered that a number of very derogatory and completely untrue claims about my past behaviour have been doing the rounds,” de Grey wrote in a June 15 email to Deming that she shared with STAT. “It was easy to clear my name once I found out what was being alleged, but it’s not trivial to get that word out to everyone who has heard the allegations. I’m assuming that Celine is one such, and I would be VERY happy to clear the air with her if she would be up for a quick call — but, as I said, she hasn’t replied to my request for one.”
It was when Deming described this interaction to O’Neill on the phone not long after that he mentioned his unsuccessful efforts to investigate de Grey. O’Neill did not respond to voicemail and text messages seeking comment.
Aubrey is so lacking awareness that
- He thought Celine was upset with him due to hearing rumors. He didn’t realize realizing that she personally had a negative experience with how he treated her. (He should know that; he was there.)
- He thought Laura would be on his side and help him because he didn’t realize Laura personally had a negative experience with him. (He should know that; he was there; he claims now to regret that email but it seems like he didn’t realize it was bad until after Laura said it was bad.)
Since Aubrey is so unaware about what he’s done wrong, it discredits his claims not to have done anything else wrong. He isn’t aware of what he has and hasn’t done wrong.
Also, Aubrey has not asked his fans to stop harassing Deming to the point that she disabled her blog comments. He’s not trying to prevent his accusers from being punished. His Facebook post has encouraged people to harass, and he could or does know it, and he isn’t making any kind of substantive effort to change what’s happening.
On Aubrey’s Facebook right now he’s letting people accuse Deming and Halioua of being greedy liars. That encourages harassment. Aubrey isn’t contradicting it, nor saying even if that might be the case please stop harassing them regardless, nor removing that kind of content from his Facebook.
This is a top level post on Aubrey’s page atm, written by “Maitreya One”, which Aubrey has not objected to, blocked, etc… he’s just watching this happen and by all appearances appreciates the support.
I believe Aubrey de Grey these ladies wait until he got all that money to come forward with a email. You know how many times I sent the wrong email out to someone. Fellas be very careful out here. Keep business business and don’t mix the two. Keep everything professional.
Here’s another example of what I read on Aubreys’ Facebook page that he could remove, disagree with, ask people not to harass over, etc., but he is not doing those things.
https://www.facebook.com/xelysiadawnx/posts/4191507277563781
Don’t believe these silly women…
Aubrey is one of the kindest and most generous people I have ever known. He only ever treated me with respect and kindness. I never saw him intentionally disrespect anyone.
These accusations are ridiculous.
These women sound like they are being incredibly insincere.
In followup self-reply comments the OP dug up some critical introspection Celine wrote and publicly shared, and highlighted parts of it to make Celine sound like a bad, flawed person because Celine actually admitted to weakness and tried to better herself.
AdG posted an update:
https://www.facebook.com/aubrey.degrey/posts/6542318705793583
There’s another reddit thread with 101 comments at:
Aubrey is acting confident that he knows in advance what the outcome of the investigation will be (that it’ll vindicate him). It also seems problematic that he gave out the name of the investigator. I also didn’t like how he thanked people for the support with no acknowledgement or discouragement of the harassment and hatred that Celine and Laura have gotten. The investigator has now seen that hatred and is under pressure to favor Aubrey if she wants to avoid being hated like that, and also she now has no option to keep her name private (I don’t know if that was ever an option, but I don’t think her name had been shared before, and preventing the public from pressuring her before the investigation is over is better than nothing.)
I think it’s important how bureaucratic stuff is. What do you do about sexual harassment claims? The same thing you do about basically any problem that’s hard to deal with. You delegate to a committee/panel/working-group. Then you can accept their conclusion and it isn’t just your own personal arbitrary judgment. You add layers of indirection to try to avoid concentrated accountability anywhere.
People hear things like “thorough investigation” and think that means it’ll actually be good or something. Instead of actually looking at the details or analyzing them. That’s something I did really differently with the CritRats. I didn’t say there was a private investigation and then announce the conclusion. I shared information so the actual issues could be discussed directly, instead of e.g. people just debating the integrity of the investigators.
The SENS process is fully capable of declaring Laura and Decline wrong without giving counter-arguments to their specific claims that are public documented and anyone takes responsibility for the correctness of. The government and big companies do that kinda thing all the time.
Part of what happens with investigations is they weigh factors. So they don’t even see the need to answer each argument. They can be like “we gave Celine’s side +50 points because that was a good argument she had there … but overall we still found Aubrey won by 300 points”. And then they conclude against Celine while never refuting one of her arguments. That’d be OK if it was an indecisive, inconclusive argument but not if it’s a decisive one (meaning one where, if it’s correct, then Aubrey is bad). They act like “if true, Aubrey bad” multiplies with “may or may not be true” or “30% chance of true” to become “50 points”. And then they just outweigh it with a bunch of other points from non-bottlenecks. Like if they find 500 Aubrey emails where he didn’t harass anyone they might say that’s a lot of evidence and count it as 1 point per email.
If you object to the investigation’s conclusion and say “what about argument X which you never gave a counter-argument to” you will predictably get one of two answers.
- we already took that into account and it did add weight to their side
- look, there are endless factors we could factor in. we were pretty thorough and looked at lots of factors. we can’t add everything. investigations have to conclude at some point. and we can’t just let you cherrypick issues that help one side to be added into consideration. if you get to add anti-Aubrey factors, to be fair we should also add pro-Aubrey factors. (how does any side ever win with that kind of “fairness”?)
so bad epistemology results in lack of actually arguing the issues.
I found some decent comments on the situation (and a lot more indecent ones, ugh):
https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/p3ltfk/jim_oneill_has_now_quietly_left_the_sens/h8t2rmm/
https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/p3ltfk/jim_oneill_has_now_quietly_left_the_sens/h8t4yu3/
https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/p3ltfk/jim_oneill_has_now_quietly_left_the_sens/h8uybm5/
https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/p3ltfk/jim_oneill_has_now_quietly_left_the_sens/h8vnn14/