= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador 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)
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.
This is an excellent point and I have no problem at all with such added activity.
However as soon as they start changing norms or trying to convince other existing LessWrong users to change their behaviour, a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done. If they decline to provide it, or if I am unconvinced I simply will not conform to the new norms (and other users are of course free to vote on my conduct).