= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on [Poll] Method of Recruitment - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (93)
There's lots to dislike. But this sentence is likely to cause some lurkers to post who might not have otherwise. And there's reason to believe that analyzing the arrival paths of those lurkers will say interesting things about the formation of intellectual communities like LessWrong.
Is that benefit outweighed by the costs that justify your dislike? You think yes, daenerys thinks no.
Anyway, I found MoR from the David Brin link.
Yes, I think the benefit outweighs the costs. I am interested in the differences between what drew males v. females to this site. There are much fewer females, so I need more of them to reply.
This seems to have worked too, as the 2011 survey held 8% females, whereas this one seems to be holding steady at a 13% females. (The other option is that the percentage of females on LW has grown by over 50% in the past 4-ish months. This seems less probable)
In case it wasn't clear, I agree with you. There are costs to regret in your approach, but I think the value of the data you might generate substantially outweighs those regrets.
Do we know that more women has answered this poll and not just less men?
There are almost certainly going to be fewer men who have answered this poll, given 972 people identified as male on the other one.
Is that what you were meaning?
No, that is not what I meant.
daenerys concluded that the message encouraging women to reply must have worked because 5 % more women answered this poll. But this could just as well have happened if the same women answered again while less men did.
Therefore I wanted to know if more women actually answered this one.
The answer to that question is no: 92 women responded to the census.
We can't say anything about "more women answering" or "fewer men answering" when we are comparing to a survey that has both more women and more men than this one. (If you weren't talking about absolute numbers, then all we have is the 8% vs. 13% which only tells us that at least one of "more women" and "fewer men" is true.)
A better comparison would be to one of the other polls with a similar number of responders (i.e. one in Discussion), but I couldn't find one that recorded gender. (a list of "polls" and of "surveys")
The big 2011 survey is pretty much like the census of LW. It runs for about a month, posted on the main page, and is one of those "Everyone who even looks at this site, please answer this survey" type deals. As far as I know only 2 have been done in the history of LW.
I would not at all expect 1000 people to answer this poll. I did a quick search for "poll" here to see how many results other polls returned. The first three that I could easily find results for: one was in the 70s, one was in the 80s, and one was in the 110s. Each of those ran for longer than a day.
Conversely, the poll that I posted has only run for a day, and has garnered 102 responses. For this reason (because 102 responses in one day compares favorably to the other Discussion polls I saw), I believe that the high percentage of female responses (currently 19% of poll respondents are women) is due to MORE women responding, NOT due to LESS men responding.
This survey is (basically) a subset of the census, and there are ~100 female responders to that one. So, unless there is a big surge of female responses to this survey, the results you described here are likely to be more representative/reliable (since absolute numbers, not relative numbers, are important).
However, I think this post is still useful for the discussion it has generated.
Although, that said, the breakdown of the referred-by-friend category (into platonic vs. romantic) could be interesting. I predict that more women than men will be referred by a date, given at least 85% of the LW population is attracted to women, but at most 20% are attracted to men. I would lean towards more romantic then platonic referrals for both genders, but most people have more platonic friends than romantic ones (only 13% of LW is definitely polyamorous), so I'm not sure.
Such as?
"Woman" is preferred to "female", when used as a noun. Either is grammatically fine (though I do think it sounds more normal to use "woman"), but some women dislike being called females.
Agreed; when I hear "male" or "female", I tend to think of animal husbandry, not human participation. What's wrong with "man" and "woman" ?
I'd hesitate to use "woman" if only because a not insignificant fraction of our members are still in their teens.
I only used "female" because that's what the OP used.
I think that you've mistaken which comment of yours I'm replying to (because you don't use the word "female" anywhere upthread of me). I was giving an example of something to dislike about the sentence "Even if you are a lurker; ESPECIALLY if you are a female!" in the OP.
Sorry, yes, my mistake.
(Though I can't help but think that, if polled, non-male LWers would converge on a third, write-in option: "This poll is a waste of time.")
EDIT: I am not referring to the poll in the OP.
Rather than recite the standard arguments about affirmative action based on sex, I'll let you google them. If that's not what Konkvistador meant, then sorry.
Edit: Okay, my sarcastic tone was anti-productive. Rephrase:
I googled "affirmative action based on sex" and a few variants. None of them produced an obvious set of concerns that are relevant to the situation at hand - increasing female interest on a community blog (and more importantly, the ideas therein), which is not the same thing at all as hiring people for a limited number of paid positions.
I appreciate not wanting to rehash out arguments that HAVE been done to death on Less Wrong, but it's not clear what you think Konkvistador's concern was. And if Konkvistador himself is tired of repeating the same arguments, it'd have been better to at least link to an older post rather than a simple, vague "dislike."
I thought that Konkvistador's point was quite clear.. And I didn't want to rehash the argument about whether it is reasonable to think that zero-sum is a useful approach to thinking about selective invitation.
Kudos for noticing that tone detracted from the argument. Konkvistador can tell you about my recent experience here about how hard that is to recognize from the inside.
Daenerys' interest in encouraging the participation of females who already frequent the site (albeit anonymously) seems a bit far from affirmative action. But I'm also willing to say "oops" if necessary.
Here's what I took Konkvistador's point to be:
Don't underestimate the mental/social barrier between lurking and posting, which is approximately as strong as the mental/social barrier between posting and writing Discussion posts or Main posts.
Will a local refutation of this by daenerys relax fears?
Agreed. Thus, an extended hand is helpful.
Maybe? But she didn't.
I think that omission was justifiable. The nature of social principles of construction is that making your disagreement with them explicit is unlikely to be effective because (1) you won't always be believed, (2) you might look like you are signalling a belief rather than holding that belief, and (3) noting that a particular social convention doesn't apply in this circumstance can function to reinforce that the convention does and should apply in most circumstances.
Also, I owe you a bit of an apology. All of this was really obvious to me in reading Konkvistador's comment, and I erroneously assumed a short inferential distance. My semi-snarky reply to you assumes the short inferential distance. That is, I didn't assume your question was in good faith, and I should have. Sorry.
Thanks for the apology, but we aren't solving Friendliness here. AFAICT, daenerys just wants to reach out to lurking females. Her doing so will have a negligible non-imaginary negative impact on the community and, indeed, the world at large.
I'm not sure that all feminists would acknowledge any negative impact at all (consider Mary Daly). That's bad mental hygiene.
I guess I wrote what I did as part of my personal project to convince feminism-skeptics that not all feminism is inherently unhealthy for mental hygiene.
If her Wikipedia page is any guide, Mary Daly had exceedingly poor mental hygiene.
The path between there and here seems dauntingly circuitous.
I in no way mean to make males feel unwelcome in this survey. All voices are welcome. However, I do feel that it is worthwhile to specifically encourage females to answer. Here is my reasoning below
Say 100 people respond to the survey. At only 8% female users, we are only going to have 8 female answers. If we want to know how females came to find the site, this isn't a very good sampling size.
I understand that this may upset some readers, and am sorry for this fact. I have set up a survey above, and if either the majority of respondents OR at least 15 people are upset by this, I will take down the phrase referring to gender in the OP.
In this case at least, that's definitely not true for me, and I don't have any evidence showing that it's true for others. So, why have you concluded that it's broadly true, or worth avoiding the possibility, for others in this case?
Honestly, that whole line of reasoning seems entirely silly given the background knowledge. I think it's widely known that women aren't represented here as much as most of us would like, and so we need to find a way to reach out to women, and so asking the existing women how they got here makes perfect sense.
Other than the relative usefulness of marginal male and female LWers, there's two other effects here that you have to weigh:
(Of course, these assumptions can't both be true, and are likely to both be substantially false.)
I don't think there's been an outreach effort for men or women, and I'm doubtful that men or women would respond significantly differently to outreach. My point is that we need to find a way to outreach to women given their small representation here, and asking the women that already comment (or lurk) on LW how they got here has potential for finding a way to outreach to women. E.g., women on LW typically come from X, then begin to focus on X.
Why does group X being under-represented somewhere automatically warrant efforts to increase their representation?
I don't think a group being underrepresented automatically warrants effort. It's trivial that there are cases where that might result in a worse outcome. However, like I implied in a previous comment in this thread, it's more to do with wanting more women in this community. Why? This community predominantly white, male, and nerd-like, and that makes it easily ignored by outsiders. I think if one of goals of LessWrong is to spread rationality, it's in its interest to diversify its culture and population.
I'll happily answer your question if you engage in some basic reciprocity by answering my question to you.
I'm pretty sure they would.
I didn't take it as affirmative action as much as proper statistical sampling.
Why in the world do you expect a forum dedicated to refining the art of human rationality to conform to such sampling? Unless you haven't noticed this is a rather niche interest associated with even more neiche memes.
And may I ask what exactly are the benefits of such sampling? Has it been demonstrated, in any endeavour whatsoever, that the efforts expended on it give greater returns in terms of achieving stated goals than other options?
Sounds like a silly rationalization for a soft-headed "diversity" applause light.
Daenerys has said that the poll has so far gotten a response of 13% female, compared to 8% in the Less Wrong survey a few months ago. I also think it's unlikely that the proportion of female members has grown by more than 50% in the last four months.
You mean the poll that specifically asked female posters to participate? From a set of people that already read LessWrong.
Yes. Daenerys is trying to find out how people who're on Less Wrong came to be here, particularly female members, and since we have considerably fewer female members, it's harder to get a significant sampling. She made a particular push for female members to participate, and it seems to have worked. So what is it that you're objecting to?
Ah I see, I thought we where talking about the general desirability of making LW representative of something or other (college educated people, the global population, France, hypothetical perfect society, ect.) not this particular drive to get data from LessWrong users who are female.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Well, Daenerys has expressed an interest in getting more female participation in Less Wrong. Whether or not we should expect proportional representation on this site, I don't think it's particularly contentious that we could be attracting more, and I do think our demographic homogeneity is a meaningful status concern.
Every action has opportunity costs, but given that we have members who're interested in bringing in more female members, I think that by doing so they will probably be doing more for the community than they would otherwise be doing.