SforSingularity comments on 'oy, girls on lw, want to get together some time?' - Less Wrong

31 Post author: MBlume 02 October 2009 10:50AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (171)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: SforSingularity 03 October 2009 02:44:40AM *  11 points [-]

I assign a 99.9% probability to there being more male readers than female readers of LW, The most recent LW meetup that I attended had a gender ratio of roughly 20:1 male:female.

Males who feel that they are competing for a small pool of females will attempt to gain status over each other, diminishing the amount of honest, rational dialogue, and replacing it with oneupmanship.

Hence the idea of mixing LW - in its current state - with dating may not be good.

However, there is the possibility of re-framing LW it so that it appeals more to women. Perhaps we need to re-frame saving the world as a charitable sacrifice?

I would love to know what the gender ratio looks like within the atheist movement; I think we should regard that as a bound on what is achievable.

Comment author: Tiiba 03 October 2009 06:06:23PM 12 points [-]

"I assign a 99.9% probability to there being more male readers than male readers of LW"

I expect that you have a VERY GOOD reason. As it is, I cannot help but disagree.

Comment author: Unknowns 24 February 2010 09:05:39PM *  7 points [-]

I assign a 99.999999% probability to the same thing, i.e. that there are more male readers in the world, than there are male readers of LW in the world.

Comment author: SforSingularity 07 October 2009 09:26:28PM 0 points [-]

typo. thanks for pointing out.

Comment author: ata 03 October 2009 09:03:57PM *  4 points [-]

However, there is the possibility of re-framing LW it so that it appeals more to women. Perhaps we need to re-frame saving the world as a charitable sacrifice?

Is there a way to re-frame LW as being about "charitable sacrifice" without significantly straying the general goal of "refining the art of human rationality" (which may or may not be charitable/sacrificial)?

What do you see as the essence of its current framing, and what is the evidence that women would respond better to the charitable-sacrifice frame?

(Normally I'd respond to the quoted comment with "That's sexist nonsense" and leave it at that, but I am trying to be socratic about it.)

(Also, if anybody knows or can estimate, are the gender ratios similar in the relevant areas of academia?)

Comment author: SforSingularity 07 October 2009 09:27:13PM *  1 point [-]

(Also, if anybody knows or can estimate, are the gender ratios similar in the relevant areas of academia?)

All male biased as far as I know. (Math, philosophy, AI/CS)

Comment author: Jack 07 October 2009 09:35:52PM 2 points [-]

Aren't biology and psychology solidly balanced/ skewed female?

Comment author: SforSingularity 07 October 2009 09:55:43PM 1 point [-]

psychology, yes, definitely. Bio, I do not know, but I would like to see what it looks like for evo psych.

Comment author: Jack 07 October 2009 10:05:00PM 3 points [-]

If you haven't read Of Gender and Rationality and the accompanying comments lately it is worth a reread. There are so many hypotheses listed that we'd need another go-around with the specific goal of assigning probabilities to the most likely ones. It also looks like there were a number of popular proposals that were never acted upon. One or more of us needs to go through that thread and write a summary.

Comment author: MBlume 03 October 2009 03:42:15AM 2 points [-]

I would love to know what the gender ratio looks like within the atheist movement

not good =/

Comment author: Larks 03 October 2009 03:54:16PM 5 points [-]

Not good from the point of view of men looking for atheist partners, but good from the point of view of these rare females.

Comment author: Alicorn 03 October 2009 03:57:38PM 4 points [-]

Except the lesbians, who may have some trouble.

Comment author: cousin_it 05 October 2009 01:43:41PM *  6 points [-]

Why would lesbians have trouble? Their pool of partners is small, but so is their pool of competitors. It's nothing like the situation that men face in a mostly male community.

Comment author: Alicorn 05 October 2009 01:55:21PM 8 points [-]

With gay people, all possible partners are also possible competitors. Therefore, a larger pool can only be better because there is a higher chance of someone being appealing at all. By your logic having exactly two lesbians would be ideal, because no one could compete with them; but without the dumbest of dumb luck, they'd be poorly suited to each other.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 October 2009 11:00:23PM 5 points [-]

The variance grows more slowly than the number, so the largeness of the pool probably doesn't make much of a difference above a lower bound. 10,000 lesbians are probably in less dating trouble than 1,000,000 men competing for 900,000 women. I could be wrong.

Comment author: thomblake 07 October 2009 11:08:09PM 6 points [-]

1,000,000 men competing for 900,000 women

In many animal populations, unbalanced gender ratios leads to higher incidence of homosexuality. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens to humans in similar circumstances.

It is, anyway, a plausible explanation for the "lesbian until graduation" phenomenon, which occurs on (typically female-dominated) college campuses.

Comment author: cousin_it 05 October 2009 02:00:50PM *  2 points [-]

I'm not sure where you disagree with me. N possible partners = N possible competitors sounds just like the typical situation of heterosexuals, no special trouble in sight. Are you maybe too accustomed to being a female in a mostly-male community? From that vantage point it does seem that lesbians are in trouble.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 06 October 2009 01:31:07AM 0 points [-]

Nice save ;)

Comment author: Larks 03 October 2009 04:04:16PM 2 points [-]

touché. And the gay men, who have yet another situation.