= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nawitus comments on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (325)
Can you clarify what you mean by "evenly distributed"?
For example, by "evenly" do you mean 50/50 between these two causes?
Do you mean distributed proportionally based on the number of men and the number of women in the community?
Do you mean distributed proportionally to reflect the gender distribution in the community (which is noticeably more complex than "number of men" and "number of women")?
Do you mean distributed proportionally based on the degree to which different genders experience differential harm under the current arrangement?
Do you mean something else?
"For example, by "evenly" do you mean 50/50 between these two causes?"
Yes.
More information here: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/4vj/a_rationalists_account_of_objectification/3r3j
I don't quite see the connection between the information you cite, and the 50/50 split policy recommendation.
From my perspective, if we can spend resources in such a way that we collectively get the most bang for the buck and reduce the spread of the curve, that's a win. (In real life those goals are often in conflict, but that's beside my point right now.)
If it so happens that the way to do that is to equally support men and women in a particular community, then a 50/50 split of resources makes sense in that community.
If that's not the case, then a different resource split makes more sense.
Whether that split is weighted towards men or women will depend on the facts of the situation. Maybe I conclude based on the information you cite that I should support Finnish men more than Finnish women, for example.
But I don't see how that data justifies a 50/50 split.
My data justifies slightly more resources for men, but until we have proper scientific research on the question, I'm okay with a 50/50 split. The split is currently about 97/3 in favor of women, so going to 50/50 would help significantly.
Ah, OK. If you are proposing 50/50 as a political compromise rather than actually asserting that it's the correct target, then my questions are beside the point. Never mind, then.
I made a list of problems in a comment on a website. That's not a good way to make politicial decisions. We need a proper study of the question. I think a priori the 50/50 split between genders is a good balance. You can call that a political compromise, I call it "don't make quick decisions without proper scientific research".
So, I have to actively disagree with this. Not for any reason having anything at all to do with gender or politics or any of that, just on pure decision-making grounds.
At every point, we ought to make decisions based on our best estimates based on the evidence we have. If your best estimate isn't 50/50 (which it isn't: you believe the data justify slightly more resources for Finnish men) then it isn't, and there's no reason to use 50/50 rather than your actual best estimate.
This has nothing to do with avoiding making quick decisions. You'd be making an equally quick decision to support 50/50 as to support 51/49 or 52/48.
This has nothing to do with gathering more data. By all means, study the question properly, and change your estimates as new evidence comes in. Absolutely. But in the meantime we still have to do something, and specifically we ought to make decisions based on our best estimates based on the evidence we have at that time, which in your case is not 50/50.
Of course, we've got a cultural (and possibly genetic, I don't know) bias towards an equal-distribution strategy... that "feels fair." So it feels like 50/50 is some kind of special number that you should support instead of your best estimate.
But I see no reason to endorse that bias (other than the political one of it being easier to sell a solution that "feels fair").