People connected to LessWrong and the Bay Area surveillance industry often cite David Chapman's "Geeks, Mops, and Sociopaths in Subculture Evolution" to understand why their subcultures keep getting taken over by jerks. Chapman is a Buddhist mystic who seems rationalist-curious. Some people use the term postrationalist.
Have you noticed that Chapman presents the founders of nerdy subcultures as innocent nerds being pushed around by the mean suits? But today we know that the founders of Longtermism and LessWrong all had ulterior motives: Scott Alexander and Nick Bostrom were into race pseudoscience, and Yudkowsky had his kinks (and was also into eugenics and Libertarianism). HPMOR teaches that intelligence is the measure of human worth, and the use of intelligence is to manipulate people. Mollie Gleiberman makes a strong argument that "bednet" effective altruism with short-term measurable goals was always meant as an outer doctrine to prepare people to hear the inner doctrine about how building God and expanding across the Universe would be the most effective altruism of all. And there were all the issues within LessWrong and Effective Altruism around substance use, abuse of underpaid employees, and bosses who felt entitled to hit on subordinates. A '60s rocker might have been cheated by his record label, but that does not get him off the hook for crashing a car while high on nose candy and deep inside a groupie.
I don't know whether Chapman was naive or creating a smokescreen. Had he ever met the thinkers he admired in person?
Iirc (was a while ago I read it) one of the big problems with the gms article imho is that it doesn't really make clear that this is only talking about a specific type of sociopath (or in other words it redefined the term, so normal stuff doesnt apply. Rao’s Gervais Principle has the same problem. no shock there.), more like someone who hurts the subculture ingroup. That in a lot of subcultures the geeks are also sociopaths to the outgroup isnt really considered. (See as a big example, metal/rock or even worse their subculture: nsbm, the former are often quite abusive to various people (esp women, who often were not considered to be able to be part of the ingroup, but also general rockstar asshole behavior) and the latter case they are basically neonazis. But also just how much the article seems to dislike mops and strawmans them (oddly this part of the article also feels very much like he doesnt understand what actually goes into organizing stuff, as a minor sort of fanatic type myself who has helped out at things. Mops are fine, this 'Fanatics may be generous, but they signed up to support geeks, not mops.' is utter crap, it also feels a bit protoincel re the whole sociopaths sleep with the best mops).
Eg. Yudkowsky is disabled (he talks a lot about that in his autobiography from 2000 and later in terms of akrasia and his struggles with fitness) but some people who know him accuse him of predatory behaviour, and he created a recruiting funnel for an apocalyptic movement and accepts a high salary for doing whatever the eff he wants. The "Geek Social Fallacies" essay talks about the danger of assuming that someone who is marginalized is not predatory.