Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: undermind 27 November 2012 02:17:15AM 1 point [-]

In my interpretation, yes, subconscious bias, and avoiding the issue or finding various non-answers when it is raised to conscious attention.

Comment author: JulianMorrison 27 November 2012 02:15:28AM *  -3 points [-]

Don't ask for a source of something that clearly is an interpretation of observation not a study. That's pretty clearly acting dismissively.

And you know what I mean about claiming ownership too. Those comments are said by men to women in a particular way that is more intrusive and different from the way they are said to you. You are being dismissive here too.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 02:15:11AM 2 points [-]

I have had the exact same thing happen to me, but gender-reversed. I may be unusual in this respect.

Comment author: JulianMorrison 27 November 2012 02:13:10AM 2 points [-]

whereas it is still so for men.

So break it.

Are you saying gender identity is not determined by biology? Because I have some transsexuals who would like to talk to you.

The etiology of trans is unknown. There are suggestions that hormones in the womb may play a part, with the brain and body controlled by hormone flushes at different times, resulting in something like "intersex of the brain". But what I meant was more simply, that social categorization of bodies as "male or female" doesn't determine their gender identity. Bear in mind I say social categorization here, because society looks at some things (penis length, particularly) and not at others (brains, particularly) about the body to put people into categories.

And no, I meant cross-gendered in the specific sense of "person socially assigned gender A in clothes socially assigned gender B".

BTW: trans being inborn and immutable is a political thing. It is easier to get rights if your discriminated-against attribute is "not your fault" so you can't be "blamed" for it. This doesn't affect the rightness of the cause, only the ease of implementing it in the face of religious (sin focused) transphobia.

Comment author: ialdabaoth 27 November 2012 02:12:44AM 6 points [-]

Okay then. I'm submitting a bug report, requesting that the karma system be updated to prevent mass-downvoting. Ideally, if a single user downvotes multiple comments or articles by a specific other user within a short timespan, and the downvoted posts are spread across multiple articles, then some sort of flag should be raised to review the downvoter's actions.

Is there a sort of meta-lesswrong discussion where we can discuss stuff like this? I feel like it's something of a derail of the current topic.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 02:09:31AM 2 points [-]

That is, no-one here is arguing for that position. I am well aware that there are people out there who hold all sorts of unjustifiable beliefs, but conflating then with my reasonable claims is logically rude.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 02:04:39AM 2 points [-]

Study whenever the benefits outweigh the risks, work to reduce the risks. Obviously.

Comment author: Strange7 27 November 2012 02:04:14AM 3 points [-]

Whenever possible, separate the normative from the objective, and consider costs as well as benefits. For example, "if you're considering being openly homosexual in Saudi Arabia, remember that however much more personally fulfilling a life it is, statistically and legally speaking, it's also going to be quite a bit shorter."

Comment author: TorqueDrifter 27 November 2012 02:03:11AM 0 points [-]

The whole point is that this is a strawman.

It's not. Maybe you're lucky enough to have never encountered it.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 02:02:42AM 3 points [-]

There's an element of "claiming ownership" in cat calling

Source please.

and in "how are you doing" and "smile baby" too.

So ... male passersby are "claiming ownership" of me? Great, now I'll be even more uncomfortable. (I'm male & het, if that wasn't clear.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 27 November 2012 02:02:29AM 2 points [-]

I read a long discussion of bullying by girls in school, and it looked as though the version committed by girls was usually inviting another girl to a party or somesuch-- but the offer was a setup for humiliation.

Possibly other (and possibly fictional) sources: girl bullies telling their victim that a boy liked her and pushing her to ask him out.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 01:58:07AM 1 point [-]

If the context is that you (or others) are telling me that it wasn't the thief's fault that they stole my TV

The whole point is that this is a strawman.

(Not sure what the point of the rest is - clarification please?)

Comment author: TorqueDrifter 27 November 2012 01:57:53AM 2 points [-]

Similar thing happened to me earlier today after a post on this same topic. C'mon lesswrong.

Comment author: army1987 27 November 2012 01:56:49AM *  5 points [-]

"If you hate being bullied for being a nerd, why do you study physics and watch anime so much?"

puts consequentialist jersey on

If I expect to be better off studying physics and watching anime, I should do so. Otherwise, I shouldn't.

puts acausal wristband on

Considering what I would want to have precommitted to wouldn't matter much -- I would likely be bullied even if I had precommitted to study physics and watch anime no matter how much I was bullied, as it's not likely that they bully me in order to deter me from studying physics and watching anime. (And it's extremely unlikely that a man catcalls a woman in order to deter her from dressing up.)

Considering that people sufficiently similar to me in sufficiently similar situations will make similar choices -- well, the world would be a worse place if more people had refrained from studying physics for fear of being bullied. OTOH watching anime doesn't have any important externalities (that, say, watching Hollywood sitcoms doesn't also have), as far as I can tell.

"Since the benefits of studying physics and watching anime outweigh the costs of being bullied, why are you complaining that you can't have it both ways?"

If I expect to be better off if I complain/have precommitted to complain (and so have people sufficiently similar to me in sufficiently similar situations), then I should complain, otherwise I shouldn't. ISTM that complaining gives visibility to the issue of people being bullied, which can't be bad. (Well, bullies might retaliate, but if I had precommitted to complain whether or not I fear they retaliate...)

'I have a right to study physics and watch anime; they have no right to bully me'

"I have a right to X" translates into consequentialistese as "I had better not be deterred from X". Should we deter people from studying physics, so that they won't be bullied? Of course not -- they are already taking into account that they might be bullied when deciding whether to study physics; plus, if fewer people studied physics, bullies would likely just vent off their frustrations on someone else. (OTOH we should tell/remind people that unfortunately studying physics may lead to being bullied, in case they don't already know/have forgotten -- if we could find a way to put that whose drawbacks wouldn't outweigh the benefits.) Should we deter people from bullying nerds? Of course we should.

You're welcome. takes wristband and jersey off

Comment author: JulianMorrison 27 November 2012 01:55:20AM 1 point [-]

There's an element of "claiming ownership" in cat calling and in "how are you doing" and "smile baby" too. It means "I have the right to your time, I have the right to your attention, I have the right to have you be pretty for me by smiling" Replying politely only confirms that, they think they have you trapped in a conversation now. And witness how this "right" is backed by indignation "bitch, think you're all that" and gendered tear-down-confidence insults "slut" and "fat ugly cow" as soon as the man is refused. Which is why women learn counter strategies that don't throw back his claim in his face (as he rightly deserves).

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 01:55:16AM 0 points [-]

So subconscious bias, then? "Excluding the threat" makes it sound deliberate and disingenuous.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 01:53:47AM 7 points [-]

EDIT: In the past 5 minutes, every post and comment I have ever made on this site has been downvoted, including ones made weeks ago, and including posts and comments which have nothing to do with this topic.

Since you were replying to me, I'd like to take this opportunity to condemn this. Seriously, people, this defeats the whole purpose of the karma system. Play by the rules.

Comment author: Manfred 27 November 2012 01:52:12AM 9 points [-]

I see this as likely to incite further discomfort

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

According to no authority, here is what I think is the standard protocol. If you know the offender, you pull their strings a bit - if they care how they appear to the people who they know, say it makes you want to avoid being seen with them, if they care about being high-class, say it's low-class, if they regularly care about strangers as people, use an ethical argument, if they care about being hard-working, say they're damaging the image of the company, etc.

If you don't know the offender you can't be so nuanced or even very friendly, but eggs, omelette, yadda yadda. If you or they are passing by with limited potential for escalation, feel free to insult their choice creatively. If it's a "sharing the elevator" kind of situation, you're going to have to put on your big boy britches (relative to the insults) and tell them politely that they're being incredibly uncool.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 November 2012 01:52:09AM 2 points [-]

Well, the kid I'm talking about is 8, so he can handle criticism better than a preschooler. To my credit, he is an awesome artist.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 01:51:28AM 0 points [-]

Ah, OK. I was confused by the anthropomorphism there.

View more: Prev | Next