LOL this guy is incredible. He denies the particular statement but then validates that he thinks in a compatible way.
Atlas Shrugged:
āMother, Iām running a steel plantānot a whorehouse.ā
Aubrey: Proudly wanted to turn his research laboratory into a whorehouse for donors by pressuring young women.
1 Like
I thought SENS should focus where they had a competitive advantage ā intellectual stuff ā but AdG 1) turns out to be a bad intellectual 2) explicitly wanted to use any and all non-intellectual tools. One context for my opinion was donation campaigns and marketing, that I thought should try to stand out intellectually instead of trying to blend in with the same pandering that other charities use.
He likes being the general in such a major cause. It glorifies him and he thinks it justifies stuff, like non-intellectual methods, that would otherwise be bad. Ironically he thinks trying to do something so important justifies him worrying about rationality less.
But he doesnāt see it as a responsibility to live up to. Heās never like āThis is a big deal, and Iām the general, so I damn well better make the SENS newsletter and website be good. I need to get some website and internet marketing experts.ā Doing a shitty job at some stuff is fine with him, and then he brings up being a general when it suits him.
The six-week investigation into [Complainant #2ās] allegations against me has concluded. It was conducted by someone named Sue Ann Van Dermyden - look her up - good luck to anyone who tries to paint her as a whitewasher. It has found not only that those allegations are 100% fictitious
The consequence (other than my reinstatement, obviously) is that a new investigation is being launched, again by Sue Ann, but this time investigating SRF so as to identify the actual villain. The existence of that new investigation is going to be made public tomorrow afternoon - unless, drum roll, it is obviated/aborted by new information.
this guy is just off on another planet, spinning ridiculous fantasy stories
itās common that ppl with high social status stop being responsive to critical feedback.
pplās mechanism for listening to others and accepting corrections is generally mostly a social mechanism thatās not great at truth seeking. some people with very high social status stop seeking approval and trying to get approval, cuz they have enough, so then it breaks their ability to get corrections and stay tied to reality.
oh thatās interesting
so if you win at second-handed status competitions the āprizeā is an even looser tie to reality than you had before
Next, we find Dr. de Greyās message an attempt to distract from his own conduct ā part of which he admitted (sending a sexual message to underage mentee Complainant #1) ā and to point to another individual as the āactual villain.ā Regardless of anyone elseās motives or conduct in pursuing an investigation, the fact remains that Dr. de Grey is responsible for his own conduct, regardless of how it came to light.
Indeed.
solid report
The part where he implied both saving someoneās career and also ending their career in the same email was ominous to meā¦
The consequence (other than my reinstatement, obviously) is that a new investigation is
being launched, again by Sue Ann, but this time investigating SRF so as to identify the
actual villain. The existence of that new investigation is going to be made public
tomorrow afternoon - unless, drum roll, it is obviated/aborted by new information.I probably donāt need to spell out anything more. [Complainant #2ās] career is absolutely
over as things stand, and the only reason it actually isnāt is because I am a man of honour
who refuses to let somebody (especially a meteoric rising star) be burned at the stake
while an actual villian [sic] gets away scot free and is thereby emboldened. Yes she will
have to take some lumps for being so gullible, but thatās not such a big deal. BUT, what
will completely torpedo my rescuing of her is if she is seen to be resisting the
identification of the actual villain. So now, as in tomorrow (Thurs) morning, is the time
when [Complainant #2] needs to find her mojo and spill the beans. As of now, a few
people are in the frame as the culprit. [Complainant #2] needs to name names, and fast,
so that no one gets to know that this new investigation is happening as a direct
consequence of her insincerity to Sue Ann and the world.
And you need to tell her so, as probably only you can. Go to it.
Heās so condescending in this tooā¦
Like:
Yes she will have to take some lumps for being so gullible, but thatās not such a big deal
Heās like offhandedly insulting this personās intellect while asking her for help while threatening her while offering to ārescueā her careerā¦ What a rollercoaster
This reminds me of something AdG wrote to Celine:
Iāve just been told that youāve been tweeting a low opinion of me, though without any explanation. I had no idea that you had any reservations about me, and I hope you know that Iām not scared of criticism and donāt ever take it personally. Iād really appreciate knowing what Iāve done that has caused this. Happy to skype/zoom/whatever if you prefer.
My first thought, when I read this, is that heās a liar, and such lies are common and give āopen to criticismā a bad name. People ā rightly ā donāt trust it. āTell me what you really thinkā said the emperor ā and then I did ā and then he didnāt like it and had me executed. āTell me what you really think, I want to hear criticism and doubtsā is often a trap to try to trick enemies into exposing themselves.
But my thought now is: AdG isnāt scared of criticism, and doesnāt take it personally, because if he doesnāt like it he just assumes itās wrong. He holds frame and doesnāt let threatening stuff into his reality. Like Rami.
People find criticism scary because they remember it and think maybe itās right, but if youāre fully arrogant and donāt care about facts then you can just dismiss stuff you donāt want to hear ā be like āoh itās cute that you have that misconceptionā and just try to correct the critic (or think that and donāt reply since you arenāt very approval seeking cuz you have so much already and/or think you do). There were signs of this in DD communications with me and others where he was pretty openly saying he deals with disagreement by trying to think of how to explain to the other guy that they are wrong, not by considering that he might be wrong himself. That arrogance makes criticism an annoyance (correcting ppl takes work and sometimes they resist corrections) rather than leading to actually doubting yourself. This stuff works best if you already have lots of status so if some critic doesnāt like you and fails to be corrected that isnāt a big deal.
heart ā hear I think
And good points. Iāve said Iām open to criticism in the past but was often lying to myself. However, if people give me real criticism then, I do my best not to respond negatively because Iāve just asked them to do specifically that, so it would be weird to respond poorly to a thing I specifically asked them to take a risk to give me.
AdG FB posts. Before report released:
https://www.facebook.com/aubrey.degrey/posts/6689637291061723
After:
https://www.facebook.com/aubrey.degrey/posts/6690833170942135
Doesnāt say much.
First comment on that second facebook post begins:
The report denies the most serious part of the accusation - cutting funding as retaliation.
Is that really the most serious part? I guess retaliation would be more serious than harassment (maybe) but this kind of diminishes the seriousness of the acts the report found him actually guilty of.
Rest of the comment:
In spite of this, the language of the post is quite harsh. I am really scared by the behavior of the people in SRF board, the way they behaved is simply unacceptable! Starting from unanimous firing up to using very harsh language that harms reputation of Aubrey.
Edit: Many of the FB comments seem supportive of Aubrey. People seem to think that this didnāt constitute harassment, asking people for sex is OK, and that if he didnāt corner someone or do something more than email them, then itās not that bad.
If itās not that bad, but Laura and Celine told the truth, then why are they so mad at Laura and Celine for revealing true, minor stuff? Hell, even lying about accusations that arenāt a big deal would not be that big a deal, right? Like if I lied that my boyfriend ate the last cookie after I said I wanted it.
I imagine this would lead to so much self-deception over time. If he canāt be corrected on stuff where he just discards the criticism, heād basically be stuck with those errors ~forever.
Good point. If I lied about someone stealing half a sandwich from me 10 years ago in elementary school, nobody would really care. Although maybe lying in general should be a bigger issue than people make it out to be, because if Iām willing to lie about that, what else am I willing to lie about to achieve my goals?
If itās such a big deal to do whatever it takes in the war on aging, and specifically to act in ways donors like, why doesnāt AdG do that himself and lead by example?
He has a reputation for being drunk. Thatās gotta turn off some donors. Plus, if he didnāt drink at dinner events, heād have his wits about him better, and make better decisions about what to say to donors. He could think strategically better.
He wants women to use their femininity with donors, but he wonāt even spend a day sober. And then, while drunk (and while emailing women that they should use non-intellectual asserts), he wants people to donate because they believe in his mind and intellectual vision.
1 Like
Whether he would or wouldnāt, I think his analogy reveals something nasty about how Aubrey views actual or potential SENS donors.
I think there is enough similarity between trying to solve aging and a war to not dismiss the analogy itself out of hand. Most notably, if we fail to defeat aging the consequences are a fuck-ton of suffering and death. I think there are problems with the analogy too though. Aging isnāt creatively plotting against us; it canāt be negotiated with or persuaded; it doesnāt have the kind of secrets that could be revealed by pillow talk.
Nevertheless if we go with the war analogy, I think it is possible sometimes to use sex as a weapon against someone on an enemyās side in a war - to get access, information, or money to do something the person wouldnāt want done.
Is that also true if the person is already on your side? Like, did/could Brits have slept with Americans in WWII so weād help out more in the war? Seems like a stretch, and it definitely wasnāt the analogy Aubrey chose.
Similarly with neutral parties: Did the allies send women to sleep with Swiss politicians in hope that theyād come into the war on the allieās side? Would that have worked? I really doubt it, and Aubrey didnāt use that analogy either.
Aubrey used sleeping with Nazis in his example. So it sounds to me like Aubrey views his actual/potential large donors as being on the side of aging in the war. He thinks itās necessary to use sex as a weapon to get them to help the anti-aging side, cuz otherwise they donāt want to. The donors are an enemy to be defeated - with sex if necessary - rather than an ally who wants to help.
It kinda fits with Aubreyās pro-aging trance idea. I just didnāt think he extended that all the way to people seriously considering a large SENS donation.
2 Likes