"a female." instead of "a female something", it primed me as if the post was searching for any female whatsoever, rather than trying to encourage LessWrong posters who happen to be female to fill out the form.
implicitly exclusionary language towards those who consider themselves male or other.
The general effort to include group X without any real evidence there is low hanging fruit in such targeted recruiting that will result in more new people on the path to rationality than otherwise. Or that the opportunity cost of this is outweighed by great benefits to refining the art.
I agree with your first point, but I'm not sure its significant enough to even comment on. It seems trivial.
To your second point, I don't see anything wrong with exclusionary language in this case; why do you?
Your third point is interesting. I mean, it's true that ideally you'd want to know the effects any of this would have. But, honestly and practically, I don't know if that's doable. It looks it could lead to paralysis by deliberation. I think just going out and doing things, and often failing and learning, might more beneficial than that level of deliberation.
In another thread, we have been discussing how people (especially female people) have come to find out about LessWrong. Instead of just guessing, I figured I would make a poll.
I remember in recent history there was a thread on the subject, but the answers were mainly "I got here from HPMoR" or "I've been here since OB". However, the question I want answered is:
How did you find HPMoR or OB in the first place?
Were you referred by a friend? Were you searching the internet for keywords like "rationality"? Were you linked from some other site you read?
Please answer! Even if you are a lurker; ESPECIALLY if you are a female reader! (There is a question where you can say you are a lurker, if you like!)
Click here to take the poll!
ETA- female *reader* and female *people*