Young Cryonicist Gathering Warning
post by hankx7787 · 2013-03-11T14:12:16.403Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 46 commentsEdit 1: context: Cryonics is a common topic on Less Wrong. There are a lot of Less Wrong cryonicists... and a good portion of people to whom this warning is relevant to are Less Wrongers. So this seems like as good a place as any to post this, since I'm just trying to get some potentially helpful information to these people.
Edit 2: It also occurred to me that if you just randomly see this you might have no idea if it's legitimate... feel free to message me if you'd like references to back up the story or anything... all you have to do is ask
Sent this to a friend, and I thought I should share:
Warning on the Young Cryonicists Gathering: The lady who runs this is quite literally, nuts. Cairn Adun will revoke your scholarship for petty reasons and leave you screwed. I had to heroically bargain down her punishment on two friends who were late to breakfast and missed the sign-in sheet. Another guy missed his flight or something and showed up late and had his entire scholarship revoked.
I went last year and escaped unscathed (as did most everyone). You can certainly do it, and yes I would recommend setting independent alarms, ample planning time, etc. I would also recommend going ahead and just sending Cairn an email saying hello, you know maybe thank her for putting the event together, you're looking forward to seeing her (lol) and you're having no problems so far (and make sure you let her know right away if there are any problems, and that it isn't your fault). When you get the chance maybe try to cautiously elicit what exactly her criteria are for screwing someone (lol), and try to be extra responsible (make sure you fill in all the fields in all the stupid forms she hands out, with at least some decent BS or something - don't give completely sarcastic answers or anything, I think she had it in for some from the beginning for half-trolling in their answers).
They will encourage you to stay out late Saturday night, and if you miss breakfast Sunday morning, multiple people were having their entire scholarships revoked, without ever being told about any of these criteria beforehand (I've heard that some of this is stated more explicitly in the contract this year). They didn't really seem to be standing up for themselves, so I went and pleaded with her as best I could and she agreed to only revoke their hotel scholarship. (Which they did end up having to pay.)
But don't freak out about it too much if you're already committed. This conference is absolutely full of interesting weirdos :) so just go and be yourself and enjoy it. I don't know if it's worth it to eat any charges you've already committed. Interested in taking Florida vacation? lol.
46 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by iceman · 2013-03-12T02:53:22.085Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I, too, attended the 2012 Young Cryonicists Gathering. This is an important enough topic that I'm upvoting this post, despite it being pretty badly written. I'm going to try rewriting the OP's post for them.
The Young Cryonicists Gathering is a networking event for people under 30 years of age to meet other young cryonicists, and to meet older cryonicists who are leaders in the community. Eliezer has written about this event before. They offer scholarships which cover airfare, food, and lodging. To get a scholarship, you must hand copy a contract that you'll attend, and they claimed this was because previous people have used it as a way of getting a free vacation to Florida.
On Saturday evening, we were encouraged to attend an open bar event that started somewhere between 10:30 and 11:00 PM at the hotel's bar. This apparently went on for quite some time; I wouldn't know for sure since I cut out slightly after midnight, and only had a single alcoholic drink. I arrived at 8:50 the next morning and had a very quick breakfast. Main proceedings were scheduled to start at 9:00, and at 9:10, a staffer walked around the main table asking us our names, and writing them down.
I later learned that this list of names were the people who didn't have their scholarships revoked.
Let's temporarily ignore fairness complaints: this action was not instrumental to the organizer's goals, which were to have us meet and talk about ourselves to other people. A very large share of conversation that morning was about people's scholarships being partially revoked. More total time was wasted with discussion and worry about this (and not getting to know each other) than actual sum time wasted by the handful of people who showed up late. Several people who were on time were worried and freaking out because they couldn't afford having their scholarships revoked, even partially. One woman there told how she was instructed by her lawyer parents that there was no way in hell that she should hand write and sign the contract that had been presented to us. The event turned into a rumor mill about what exactly was going on because people were in the dark.
Moving back to the fairness issues, this was done with no warning after a late night drinking event that we were encouraged to attend. And the saddest part is that that open bar was probably the most worthwhile part of the trip. I found most of the conference to otherwise be overly regimented without enough unstructured time.
Replies from: hankx7787, hankx7787, hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T03:09:04.819Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I found most of the conference to otherwise be overly regimented without enough unstructured time.
I actually agree with this completely. That was my main piece of constructive advice for the conference: more unstructured time. The best conversations were around the hot tub. Funny how that works.
Replies from: TimS↑ comment by TimS · 2013-03-12T14:51:40.335Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Hank,
That is not your call to make. If you don't like how the conference is run, don't go. Encourage others not to go by telling them how the event is organized, not by throwing around wild, entitled accusations of mental illness. There is no evidence that the conference organizer is mentally ill. Writing "lol" is the functional equivalent of pointing and laughing - what gave you the right to point and laugh? You shouldn't be surprised that appearing and being petty is not rewarded in this forum.
If you had written what iceman wrote, you wouldn't have been downvoted. NPOV writing enhances credibility, and you are going out of your way to avoid NPOV. In fact, you seem surprised that your wisecracking is not being appreciated.
I'm sympathetic to the people hurt by the conference organizer. I have suspicions about behind the scenes issues that the conference organizer has not revealed because the issues would make the organizer look bad - even if they aren't illegal or immoral or even the organizer's fault.
By contrast, your original post seems uninterested in their problems or in the quality of the conference, except as a bloody shirt for you to wield to support your ad hominem attacks.
Replies from: wedrifid, hankx7787↑ comment by wedrifid · 2013-03-12T15:59:47.087Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That is not your call to make. If you don't like how the conference is run, don't go. Encourage others not to go by telling them how the event is organized, not by throwing around wild, entitled accusations of mental illness.
You have made this reply to Hank in response to (perhaps) the only comment by Hank in this thread to which it isn't a valid response.
The grandparent (in particular and perhaps to the exclusion of the other rants) is an entirely legitimate position. Giving an evaluation on which component is most valuable is his call. You don't need to agree with it and the organizers do not need to comply with the advice but he is not "out of his place" to make it.
Replies from: TimS↑ comment by TimS · 2013-03-12T16:51:22.243Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Given the rest of the context, (particularly hankx7787's other response to iceman's post), I'm not confident that he understands the distinction between appropriate criticism and the organizer being required to follow his advice.
But I agree with you that the distinction is valid, and criticism without the necessity to comply is completely appropriate in this context.
↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T16:45:37.383Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So why don't you respond down here?
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/gys/young_cryonicist_gathering_warning/8loh
Why don't you tell me that it's ok to screw our friends with an enormous, unexpected bill because your contract was garbage and it would hurt the program's budget to treat them fairly? Even though it's against all of your your own instrumental goals, even though you have no legal basis, even though that's an incredibly heartless, dick thing to do.
You seem to be suggesting that's perfectly rational behavior and not crazy at all, so why don't you elaborate on that.
Replies from: TimS↑ comment by TimS · 2013-03-12T16:58:46.351Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"It would hurt the program's budget to treat them fairly" could be perfectly rational behavior. You don't know the event organizer's instrumental goals - although there does appear to be some disconnect between the expressed goals and the revealed preferences.
The event organizer's actions might even be legal ("Your contract is garbage," without a lot more context, is not a legal argument).
It's still a jerk move. And I sympathize with the people being hurt by it.
Still, I don't care about Cryonics events. I'm writing only to try and help you calibrate how to write persuasively and informatively.
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T17:19:14.545Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not trying to write persuasively. I already have all the information in the first place. I know the organizers reasons, she told them to me. I know the contract is garbage, I just looked at it last night to make certain I was actually corresponding fully with reality here. If I wanted to be persuasive I would have just laid all of that on the line. But I don't want to do that here. I'm not trying to persuade the people who don't believe me, I'm just trying to make sure anybody who seriously cares about this can see it, and knows they can get more information from me if they want it in order to better make a decision. Since it's relatively costless to simply ask me for the evidence, it's silly for anybody who seriously cares about the answer to complain that they don't believe me without even asking.
Replies from: TimS↑ comment by TimS · 2013-03-12T17:50:40.945Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You aren't writing informatively either, because you have a clear axe to grind beyond informing others of what happened. Also, a well written piece doesn't require additional clarification. If you can't write a good essay without including information you would hesitate to reveal publicly, then no publicly available good essay is writable.
I wrote elsewhere about different possible meanings of believing you. Suffice it to say that one could believe iceman and still not believe you. That's essentially where I'm at - and I have no intention of investigating further, because I'm not someone who seriously cares about this issue.
You seem to think the social pressure that led iceman to post has caused a serious harm to iceman (or others). I acknowledge the social pressure, but don't see the serious harm that you seem to see. Given that I've never heard of this event before, retaliation by the organizer beyond exclusion from future events is so remote as to be unimaginable by me.
And I'm tapping out.
↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T03:07:19.510Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
More total time was wasted with discussion and worry about this (and not getting to know each other) than actual sum time wasted by the handful of people who showed up late.
Which just goes to illustrate my question, which do you think was a bigger pain in the ass for Frodo, the Fellowship or the Ring? lol
Replies from: hankx7787comment by [deleted] · 2013-03-11T15:47:01.259Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
... Context?
comment by Salivanth · 2013-03-11T23:52:27.968Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you have references, and you want to get potentially helpful information to rationalists, why on earth would you not just post these references to begin with? If you have a good reason for not making the references public, why didn't you say so in your initial post?
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-11T23:54:56.533Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It never occurred to me that a Less Wronger whose name you can click and view their history, who has no known reasons to randomly start attacking this one person with a very specific, elaborate story that could be easily verified... I'm sorry I can't even finish this sentence.
Replies from: Salivanth↑ comment by Salivanth · 2013-03-12T00:15:53.022Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's how it looks like from your perspective. From a reader's perspective, it looks like someone who isn't a notable community figure on LessWrong (At least, I assume this, based on your karma scores and the fact that I have never heard of you. If I'm wrong, I apologise.) has suddenly made a claim with a significant burden of proof on it, and not provided any concrete evidence, despite apparently sitting on some. "I have evidence but am not going to include this in this post, nor will I explain why I cannot include the evidence in this post." is an immediate red flag.
Additionally, I refer to Michaelos's point, who puts it better than I can. You're accusing someone of being insane, but your post comes off as not being all that serious, with the "lol"s interspersed.
Lastly, you claim that your story is easily verified, but some Google searches have turned up absolutely nothing even tangenitally related to your claim except for this thread. If it's easily verified by external sources, I haven't been able to see it.
So, if it never occurred to you that your story would be doubted, you've obviously made a mistake somewhere. Your evidence in favor of you telling the truth (You've been on LW for a while, you're opening yourself up to falsification, you have no known reasons to start attacking this person) is simply nowhere near sufficient.
That said, you can still fix this. Clearly, you were wrong about the likelihood of people doubting you, but everyone makes mistakes. So post your evidence, link us to somewhere that verifies your story, and I expect the problem will be solved.
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T02:11:48.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
well, you're systematically wrong.
I don't want to, say, "name the victims", unless someone genuinely wants more evidence if this is real or not, so I can run it by them first. "Serious inquiries only." I've already explained below about not wanting to be "too serious" in my tone in the email. The fact that Google returns no results is a sad testament to the fact that nobody else apparently thought it worth telling about (and Cairn Idun's bizarre, cryptic snail mail packages of paper don't exactly facilitate an online presence. If you knew anything about this you'd know what I mean.)
But the main point is that you're not actually responding to what I said. What possible evidence could you have to think I'm making this up? I'm not not giving out my evidence, I'm actually telling you that I can provide it if asked for.
If you seriously don't care one way or another about why it's true, then I really don't know why you care so much about why everything is not instantly transparent, when you can easily think of reasons why I would want to keep some details private in making the claim.
Replies from: Salivanth, TimS↑ comment by Salivanth · 2013-03-12T02:37:31.268Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I never actually claimed you were making this up, merely that the likelihood of your story being true was low. You inventing the story is only one possible reason why your story might be false. You could also simply be mistaken, have witnessed actions that looked much worse out of context (For example, maybe your friends did something to deserve their treatment, but didn't tell you because it would make them look bad) or some other reason I haven't thought of.
In addition, you ask why I care so much about lack of transparency when I can think of reasons why you'd want to keep information private. You gave none of this information in the original post, so if I were to come up with potential reasons why you might want to keep the information secret, I'd be rationalising.
With that in mind, evidence that your story is false:
- The prior probability of your claim is low. Not extremely low, but as when making any claim that isn't obvious, the "burden of proof" is upon you. (Naturally, I don't expect PROOF, hence the inverted commas, but you do need to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the initial low probability.)
- You claim to have references, yet don't provide them in the initial post or explain in the initial post why you won't publicly provide them. (Yes, you've given me an explanation now, which reduces the strength of this evidence, but does not eliminate it.)
- I have been unable to find any collaborating evidence for your story.
- The reaction on LessWrong, a site where the average member tends to be at least somewhat rational and probably at least as rational as myself, if not more so, is nearly universally negative.
- You've failed to provide verification. You claimed your story was easily verified, yet there's a conspicuous absence of any verification. Unlike your references, if your story is "easily verified", that means it's verifiable using public knowledge, and you haven't provided that knowledge. (If the story is verifiable by asking you, that does not count. You're asking us to verify the trustability of a source by asking that same source.)
Evidence that your story is true:
- You said it is. (Let's start with the obvious here.)
- Lack of discernable motivation for lying.
- Consquences if you're wrong, which you seem to care about. (Loss of karma/status in the group.)
- You've been around for a while.
- Decent chance people on LW would call you out on it if you were lying. (Thus making you less likely to try and fool people.)
In the end, the evidence for it being false is simply stronger. You've failed to overcome the burden of probability you've shouldered by making the claim. In order to overcome this burden, more evidence is required. Hence why I asked you to show the easy verification you claim exists, and post your references. If you have a good reason to not do the latter, at least do the former, and if you have a good reason not to do THAT as well, you'll just have to resign yourself to not being believed here.
Replies from: hankx7787, hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T02:40:52.927Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize "easily verified" was a technical term. It seems perfectly easy to just ask me and receive what you want. How is that any different than getting results from a google search, except that you'd have to confirm that the evidence is real, which at that point would be a significantly higher probability (or lower probability, I suppose, depending on what you saw) belief anyway (and a requirement that the results of your search would be subject to anyway)?
Replies from: Salivanth↑ comment by Salivanth · 2013-03-12T02:58:52.123Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Okay, I've sent a PM asking you for verification.
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T03:00:32.138Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You're too fucking late you idiot
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gys/young_cryonicist_gathering_warning/8lok
Now let's learn from this and not make the same mistake when it counts, shall we? :)
Replies from: Salivanth↑ comment by Salivanth · 2013-03-12T03:16:29.230Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thank you. I apologise for not asking you for verification sooner. My downvote is revoked and I've upvoted your post.
I learnt that I should have asked for verification sooner, either immediately, or as soon as you informed me you had reasons for wishing to keep said verification private. I also learnt that I should assign a higher initial probability to claims made by LessWrong members I don't know, which is a lesson I'm very glad to have learnt, since I do enjoy trusting people.
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T03:18:24.543Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
man now I feel bad about cussing when you took it so elegantly, lol. and yeah, on your last point, I seemed to be much more confident than the average Less Wronger about Kim Souzzi for example. Not really sure if that's related but it at least seems like another data point.
↑ comment by TimS · 2013-03-12T02:38:54.220Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The question is not precisely whether you are making this up, but whether your judgment of who is in the wrong is correct. I believe that a conference organizer offered to let someone attend for free, then midway through the conference, revoked that offer.
I am not certain whether the conference organizer or attendee is in the wrong. In short, your story has a perspective - and there is nothing wrong with that. But the tone of your essay is not internally consistent, or consistent with the message of the essay.
To put it differently, the organizer might say:
Running this conference is very expensive. I desire that everyone be able to attend for free, but I don't have the ability to do that. Instead, I offer free admittance to worthy folks that I select. It is very important to me that attendees at the conference participate fully. Thus, the people I admit for free are required to attend all the essential sessions. I'm sorry if I didn't communicate the attendance requirement or essential session list with sufficiently clarity that everyone understood my position, but that's the way things are. If you think you can run a conference on this topic better than I, you are welcome to set up your own, with your own rules.
Such an organizer might be legally liable for some costs (on a breach of contract or other legal theory). Such organizer might be morally wrong, or a very stiff necked jerk. But such a person would not be delusional or mentally ill.
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-12T02:44:55.984Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Tim, the distinction is moot from the point of view of the poor bastard getting screwed in all this. Anyone with a shred of empathy can see that. It's especially bad since these are explicitly young people, most of whom are not going to be economically well off, which is why they needed the scholarship so much in the first place!
I don't think our mutual friends to whom this email was sent would agree that it's ok to screw them with an enormous, unexpected bill because your contract was garbage and it would hurt the program's budget to treat them fairly (in some crazy scenario you're suggesting may be possible). I don't know of any reason why the cases last year couldn't be taken to court except that nobody tried or it wasn't worth it. But you're a lawyer so maybe you can answer that...
comment by Cain79 · 2014-03-29T13:59:04.991Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(I know I'm late to the conversation, but whatever......)
I attended Teen & Twenties 1 & 2, and I can definitely attest to Cairn being a nutjob.
T&T 1 went off without a hitch. T&T 2.....not so much.
During the "Speed Dating" session, I got up to use the restroom. A good friend of mine (also in attendance) was in the hallway conducting business. I returned to the room and, rather than interrupt the entire session, I grabbed a chair and sat by myself. Soon after, my friend returned as well. He pulled up a chair and we proceeded to shoot the breeze. Once everyone was told to switch, we gained another person. Soon we had a large group of people loosely socializing (very happily, I might add). For the record, this group included Saul Kent from Life Extension.
To those in attendance, this was a nice break from the rigid structure. To Cairn, this was a HUGE problem. Once she noticed, she proceeded to throw an absolute s**t fit. She likened us to suicide bombers, publicly called us out, and blatantly accused my friend of starting the whole thing. She repeatedly asserted that this was HER event, and if we weren't willing to play by HER rules, we shouldn't even come. The whole thing was akin to a toddler pounding their fists on the floor screaming "MINE!! MINEMINEMINE!!!"
In doing so, she successfully alienated several people (a number of which are very active and influential in Cryonics).
We were originally told that T&T was about creating a Cryonics community. It has, however, become increasingly obvious that the true purpose is to provide Cairn with an opportunity to play Tyrant.
I strongly recommend staying as far away as possible from ANYTHING run by Cairn Idun.
comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-11T20:41:48.287Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Genuine question: why is this getting down voted?
Edit: Ok, not enough context, and questions of legitimacy. I at least added a disclaimer at the top now...
Edit 2: And nobody cares apparently. That's just sad.
Replies from: drethelin, Decius, Decius, None, Emile↑ comment by drethelin · 2013-03-12T05:23:12.371Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
the most important factor: You are talking like a jerk, not just in the original post, but in every response to every comment about this I've read. You seem completely unable to comprehend (or possibly just to admit) that your opinions shouldn't be taken as the obvious word of god that they are, and think anyone questioning your assertions is doing it out of idiocy or spite. Even if tone is not a legitimate way to evaluate truth value of statements (though I think it tends contain a lot of evidence), it's definitely one of the big factors that influences downvotes.
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by Decius · 2013-03-11T21:09:04.097Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Misuse of 'literally'; lack of enough context to understand what you are saying, and you come off like you are venting.
Replies from: Desrtopa, hankx7787↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2013-03-11T23:21:17.970Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't think this is a misuse of "literally." "Nuts" as a noun may denote hard shelled seeds, but as an adjective it denotes craziness as a literal meaning. So in context, "literally nuts" means "actually, not figuratively or hyperbolically, crazy."
That said, the overuse of "lol" is enough to make me consider downvoting all on its own.
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-11T23:32:20.526Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, in this particular situation, specifically her callousness in how severe a sentence she was imposing, without giving any specific advance notice about her criteria, and how coldly she rejected my pleas to have mercy on them. That's pretty clearly over the line, which is what I meant by "literally nuts" instead of just "nuts". The quite considerable concession she later made to reduce their punishment seemed, yes, more humanizing. So I'm not just trying to universally bash her, I know some people are friends with her and everything. Also I don't know that this exhibits a persistent personality trait, for example I was told they are making the rules more explicit in the contract, so I don't want to be seen as committing a fundamental attribution error. Also, I was using "lol" to defuse the warning just a little bit, since people who are already financially committed may be liable to freak out just a little bit too much and I didn't want to be sending the wrong signal... Ok, enough said.
Replies from: Desrtopa↑ comment by Desrtopa · 2013-03-12T03:45:50.580Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also, I was using "lol" to defuse the warning just a little bit, since people who are already financially committed may be liable to freak out just a little bit too much and I didn't want to be sending the wrong signal... Ok, enough said.
If you want to know how I reacted to it, go through you your post and substitute every instance of "lol" with "hahaha." Ask yourself "is this an appropriate point in a speech to laugh?"
If a person giving a speech laughs after they say things that are liable to give offense, it will sound either insensitive, or awkward and inappropriate, like they're nervous and don't know a better way to diffuse the tension.
Lol isn't a punctuation mark, after all.
↑ comment by hankx7787 · 2013-03-11T23:20:59.088Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh come on, it's a figure of speech, this isn't a freakin scholarly article, it's just an email I sent to someone that I put here because I genuinely want to help others... point taken about context, I guess that really is a serious issue here, in terms of karma at least. I wasn't venting, but this was a first-hand experience, so I guess I just really relate well to the situation (lol) and feel free to stick in those barbs
Replies from: Decius, Qiaochu_Yuan↑ comment by Qiaochu_Yuan · 2013-03-12T00:37:38.287Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Emails don't have to be scholarly articles, but blog posts are neither, and still have to be blog posts. They're all different kinds of writing and place different burdens on you as a writer.
Replies from: hankx7787↑ comment by [deleted] · 2013-03-11T21:12:19.520Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, if I understand your post, you're accusing an Cryonicist (Note I think her name is Cairn Idun) of being literally crazy for being strict with free money, but you're not doing it very seriously, "(lol)" being used several times.
If she really has gone insane, then you should take it more seriously. If she hasn't actually gone crazy, then this is pointless dramatics.
Also, a quick search for her indicates this isn't the first time she/young cyronicists has received criticism. But that criticism doesn't seem very convincing to me: https://sites.google.com/site/cryonicsfactsheet/scam-4---the-young-cryonicists