To Imminst Community:

Dear ImmInst Community,

I undertook the responsibility of Director to serve in the interests of the Institute mission and also to serve you, the members, without whose support ImmInst would not exist. There have been calls that I have not been sufficiently diplomatic in the method of my communications, and that this has resulted in the departure of two Advisors, Aubrey de Grey and John Schloendorn.

Whilst I believe my communications have never ventured into ad hominem territory (in contrast to those of some of my opponents) it may be that you, the community, have formed a similar opinion (that I am too abrasive in my approach and that this is to the detriment of the Institute).

I strongly desire that the Institute fulfil its mission and that nothing permit that mission to be compromised. If, therefore, you consider my communications to be inappropriate, or you believe that I can serve you and the Institute better, then please make your thoughts and suggestions known here.

Sincerely,

Harold (prometheus)

FWIW

I thought you were too in your face, or not sufficiently diplomatic, with Aubrey. I did not think so with the recent John S. incident. I may not have seen everything, but i read what I found available. I am also taking them as separate incidents, which may not be realistic in effect.

I have a hard time seeing where you are coming from. The times in which it seems crystal clear where you are coming from, your actions and intent are laudable. Are the other times, when i can not understand your intent, due to me missing the whole picture, or is it similar to a politician's two-face slick maneuvering? I do not feel like I am capable to answer that question.

Is this thread's question for real? Is it posturing? I do not know for sure.

I understand you are very to the point while posting (and no doubt in your life itself), and that certainly is very important and relevant to the "work" being done on Imminst. You are no doubt knowledgable about many things regarding biology, biotechnology, and other subjects that are what I would deem important fields of study. I respect you in those regards. You are also often quite condescending, patronizing and sometimes downright insulting to other people's intelligence. Like Cnorwood says above me, I'm not sure what you want to hear in these posts, you know how most users feel about your style of directorship. I also feel you are indeed an asset to Imminst.

I have been impressed with most things you have done for this institute Promethius, but I am a little disturbed by your role in alienating two valued advisors at the forefront of aging research. Surely this could have been prevented with a little more tact.
I believe there are times for overly confronting discourse, though you seem to have difficulty in recognising these. I do think that your discursive manner could benefit from a little thought. As a leader, moderation can go a long way.
I do believe that the way you have approached some issues has been to the detriment of the institute.

It would be a shame to see Imminst go the way of the WTA; which is to say diminishing influence, reduced output of advocacy and use to the community because the leadership alienates as many as it induces to support the organization.

I'm not interested in pointing fingers, but rather in pointing out the obvious - there is no significant role for an advocacy organization that drives away those who are interested in getting things done in the field. There is no significant role for an organization that fails to keep up a certain level of effort and initiative. However that comes about, whatever the underlying causes, things must change if Imminst is to be more than an irrelevant footnote.

When those who are getting things done don't feel that you are providing a comfortable place to associate and collaborate, that's the beginning of the decline.

In handling the LM issue, my first impression was that you were to aggressive. But later that turned out to be the right approach. Vision?

In general, if we like it or not, science is as much infected with taking positions and defending these positions as e.g. politics is. In fact, all social interactions are. It takes a high level of empathy to deal with these polarisations. On a Internet forum, where the facial and tonal expressions are missing, it is quite hard to express this empathy. In delicate and sensitive situations, one should choose words with care to compensate this. Or once in a while use the phone, video conferencing or even an old fashioned meeting to "synchronise" these very important communication aspects. The risks of escalation due to the absence of non-verbal elements of communication should be recognised and dealt with by all discussion participants.

Furthermore, imminst should make a next step in the development into professionalism. IMO, imminst should take action to define the role of a director more accurately. What is the role of a director in an organisation? Is it one of integration or one of defending positions? And what could be the role of valuable individuals that have difficulties in being an integrator because they are promoting less mainstream but excellent idea's?

Have they been able to get more work done since leaving the forum?

You are also often quite condescending, patronizing and sometimes downright insulting to other people's intelligence.

I would like to echo this observation.

I stopped posting on ImmInst about 6 months ago because I, at that time, felt attacked personally. I am back now because I realized that the arguments where circular in nature. It may be because they where basically ideological, with no hard evidence to support any one position.

I have come to the conclusion that my time is best spent creating tangible results, not continuously arguing about what will be the best approach. I have been able to provide valuable contributions to the Methuselah Foundation(MF) with much less communication necessary. I think ImmInst might learn a lesson from the MF in that regard. I think there need to be a certain degree of faith in the competence of volunteers for any progress to be made.

I am talking solely based on my own experience arguing with Prometheus here. It may have nothing to do with what resulted in Aubrey and John leaving. But I think it more likely that there are overlapping issues, and I think Prometheus's argumentative strategy is only a small part of this failure.

My advice to you Prometheus, if I may, would be not to jump to conclusions about any personal motives for people arguments. Or at least be very careful about when and how to accuse people of harboring such "alternative" motives. If you are wrong (and sometimes even if your right) about such accusations it really is a showstopper to communications.

Just my two cents. Take em' or leave em'

Edited by lightowl, 11 November 2006 - 02:34 AM.

Perhaps I havn't kept that close an eye on imminst, but why did Aubrey and John leave? I'm not too bothered by John leaving, as the last time I read one of his posts it was advocating that AIs SHOULD kill everyone, but Aubrey is the world's most famous anti-aging advocate...

I think he was being devils advocate there. How else could you sell AGI to the greens?

When those who are getting things done don't feel that you are providing a comfortable place to associate and collaborate, that's the beginning of the decline.

This is crux of the matter and it goes way beyond Aubrey or anyone else but actually is a very significant problem for the future. The role ImmInst has played in the past requires openness, tolerance and cooperation. This has been changing as leadership has experimented with new approaches. In some cases such adjustments are necessary but when it alienates those who are actually producing anything, it diminishes the value of ImmInst itself, and that poses an existential risk to the organization and must be avoided.

I agree that pointing fingers is completely irrelevant and that concentrating on creating value should take priority. People will come and go but being valuable is a strategy that goes beyond individuals. I suggest that the involvment or lack thereof of Aubrey et al should be taken for what it is, learn from the experience and get on with the business of saving lives. If value is created here, valuable people will continue to show up and contribute and help change the world.

How about moving on folks... let's start discussing projects and who has the time and skills to do what..

I would like to thank everyone for their comments. It is one thing to hear criticism from one's opponents during the heat of debate and another from those whose participation is limited to observation. Your input is valuable and will be acted on.

How about moving on folks... let's start discussing projects and who has the time and skills to do what..

I absolutely nothing against your approach. You have questioned people that hold their views very close and perhaps exposed some holes in their theories and of course, people are not going to like that.

personally, I really like your, at times "in your face" approach to keeping it real.

I don't know what people are referring to when they mention 'attack' because most that I have read are questions that aims at cutting through to find information.

Your intentions seem to be noble and good in my opinion.

Keep it up Prometheus

I apologize, I've been away/busy for much of this year.

What is this I hear about Aubrey and John leaving? I quickly looked through everything I could find on the site, but only found the recent threads regarding the issues between John and Prometheus. I found nothing about Aubrey. Please, someone point me in the right direction. This troubles me alot.

How about moving on folks... let's start discussing projects and who has the time and skills to do what..

Exactly what i said in the other thread.

someones feelings were hurt? isn't that the most terrible thing to ever happen. [:o]

get real.

I was attacked by Harold and now we get along just fine.........right? Me an Jay fox had some less than ideal discourse as well, but I don't focus on it and have since moved on.
Progression is the important aspect, let the studies and research decide who is worthy of admiration or disdain.

Dear Community,

I have been asked to apologise. For what precisely, I am unclear. Since I serve at your pleasure, I would hear from you.

Sincerely,

Harold.

You don't owe me any apologies.

I would like to thank everyone for their comments. It is one thing to hear criticism from one's opponents during the heat of debate and another from those whose participation is limited to observation. Your input is valuable and will be acted on.

I have been asked to apologise. For what precisely, I am unclear. Since I serve at your pleasure, I would hear from you.

I would bend farther than seems fitting to find a compromise. It is worth the bending to get things done and moving. This may mean apologizing that things ended up the way they did, as I am sure it was not your preference, and echo what you said above.

Whatever can be done to get the propositions you are championing closer to fruition. They are what matters most, IMO. It would be a great step forward for the institute if those were implemented. I think we have a choice of being a paper tiger or working together to bring forth ideas and getting them implemented.

"I am sorry for not acting with enough tact or diplomacy when dealing with other advisors"

"I apologize for not acting more agressively to find a quick solution to the problems with Aubrey or John"

"This could have been handled better, I feel bad that things spiraled downward, I should have sought more counsel on how to resolve the situation. I promise to act less agressively in the future"

"I am sorry for creating discord or hurting anyone's feelings, I didn't think I was going out-of bounds and it was not my intention to drive anyone away from the Institute."

Mix or match. Add or subtract.

This is what I would expect from most people. This is the type of thing I have seen many times when people want to get going on the right foot again. It works. Apologies work because people have natural empathy. Even half-hearted apologies give hope that things can be worked out, and that is what most people want, some sort of agreement, and to move forward again.

Even half-hearted apologies give hope that things can be worked out, and that is what most people want, some sort of agreement, and to move forward again.

True but surely having mentioned this partly negates that?

True but surely having mentioned this partly negates that?

Don't you hate that? [lol]

Don't you hate that? [lol]

Maybe its just me who thinks this thanks to my lack of success with insufficiently "natural" apologise to my girlfriend [wis]

Prometheus, you are asking us if you should apologize!? WTF? If you feel you don't have anything to apologize for, then don't apologize. If you do, then apologize. I am certainly not going to hold your hand and tell you whether or not you should apologize, nor am I going to vote on whether or not Prometheus should apologize, nor am I going to get into a long debate over whether or not Prometheus should apologize.

Full members were asked to vote on an amendment to the constitution, and then your status as director. That is all. All this extra maneuvering and misdirection and politics is extraneous BS.

All this extra maneuvering and misdirection and politics is extraneous BS.

That is exaclty what a fake apology is. If you have no idea what to apologize for and insist that you don't need to apologize, then offer one just to get people off your back, then it means absolutely nothing. At least to me anyway. Some people fall for that "extraneous BS" but I don't.

Prometheus, you are asking us if you should apologize!?  WTF?  If you feel you don't have anything to apologize for, then don't apologize.  If you do, then apologize.

Yes, that's exactly right Richard. It may not be politically correct but it's damned honest. I'm being asked to apologize and I would like to know what for. Since you seem to know so much perhaps you can tell me.

I am certainly not going to hold your hand and tell you whether or not you should apologize, nor am I going to vote on whether or not Prometheus should apologize, nor am I going to get into a long debate over whether or not Prometheus should apologize.

Sensible.

Full members were asked to vote on an amendment to the constitution, and then your status as director.  That is all.  All this extra maneuvering and misdirection and politics is extraneous BS.

You missed the part about due process. We do adhere to Western values here don't we?

Additionally, RL and JM why do you think Harold initiated this post? Harold has made an honest attempt to get feedback.

Extraneous BS? Far from it. The vote for him to step down as director is based on an undefined lack of diplomacy and in this post he asks for feedback on how he can modify his approach to be more "diplomatic"

All this extra maneuvering and misdirection and politics is extraneous BS.

That is exaclty what a fake apology is. If you have no idea what to apologize for and insist that you don't need to apologize, then offer one just to get people off your back, then it means absolutely nothing. At least to me anyway. Some people fall for that "extraneous BS" but I don't.

I'm glad we are on the same frequency. I don't believe in BS apologies either. However, Mind was kind enough to make some suggestions.

"I am sorry for not acting with enough tact or diplomacy when dealing with other advisors"

"I apologize for not acting more agressively to find a quick solution to the problems with Aubrey or John"

"This could have been handled better, I feel bad that things spiraled downward, I should have sought more counsel on how to resolve the situation. I promise to act less agressively in the future"

"I am sorry for creating discord or hurting anyone's feelings, I didn't think I was going out-of bounds and it was not my intention to drive anyone away from the Institute."

The distilation of the above is:
Aubrey and John. Right. I have hurt Aubrey and John.

Funny that. Aubrey did not appear very hurt at all. In fact when I communicated with him he was perfectly fine. And that's before I gave him my word there would be no more public debates on SENS. I guess that must have to do with the fact that it was I who was in fact hurt by him leaving and not the other way around. That it was I who had to swallow insult followed by the recriminations from my colleagues.

As for John, lets see... He appears outraged that I dared to criticize him about his behavior on the MF board. I was in fact defending a young member there who made an ingenious suggestion only to have it arrogantly shot down. Here is the terrible topic that made John resign (note how I am an arrogant ogre):
http://www.imminst.o...=173&t=13018&s=

So to whom should my apology be directed (who have I hurt)?

Funny that. Aubrey did not appear very hurt at all. In fact when I communicated with him he was perfectly fine.

Since I can already see people scratching their heads in disbelief, allow me to help clarify a point: Harold's not saying that Aubrey was happy with Harold's style of debate. Yes, it annoyed Aubrey. The question isn't whether Aubrey was annoyed, but whether he was so "hurt" that he felt himself forced to leave.