= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Raemon 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)
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.