You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA) - Less Wrong Discussion

20 [deleted] 09 September 2012 08:39AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (364)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 September 2012 02:03:58PM 3 points [-]

As long as it's got at least one lady who hasn't already been recruited, what difference does that make?

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 11 September 2012 02:49:10PM 4 points [-]

On an individual level, this will work fine for a few people. It makes a difference, though, if everyone tries that specific strategy. The strategy will lose its effectiveness quickly, and the overall effect on the gender divide will not be very large.

Trying to bring more women into the relevant spheres is clearly a big part of the answer. However, simply moving women from one low-density area to another doesn't seem very productive to me.

Comment author: LucasSloan 11 September 2012 08:50:42PM 1 point [-]

It is true that you receive dimishing marginal returns whenever you try to import people. Even if we were to use the largest available population sink, eventually we'd run into limits. The larger the population sinks you use, the less it has been filtered, so while your returns diminish more slowly, the effort required at the outset is larger.

Given the small size of our group, physics departments are more than large enough population sinks for the forseeable future.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 04:51:06PM *  6 points [-]

I actually dislike the focus on pulling in people from physics/computer programming/math. As Dreaded_Anomaly mentions, these are fields which have just as bad of a gender ratio as here. As long as we continue focusing on those fields, I don't think the gender ratio problem is going to get much better.

Also, I don't think there's anything inherent in rationality that means that it requires physics/programming/math types. But I think our current community is generally set up in a way to self-perpetuate that.

I can understand that STEMM types might more frequently lean towards rationality, which is why recruiting from there is often a suggestion. (If you have a .5 probability that a random intelligent STEMM person would be amenable to rationality, but only a .2 probability that a random intelligent person of another field would be, for example.)

A way to get around that: Personally, I've found that anyone I have a match of >94% on OKC has a high probability of being the aforementioned Rationalists Who Just Don't Know It Yet. I myself was "recruited" this way. Dated someone from OKC (We no longer date, but are still REALLY good friends) who I was a 99% match with, and they pointed me toward HPMoR, then LW, etc, all while modeling "proper rationalist behavior" in our discussions. I think that's all that it takes, often, to get someone interested in rationality (once you filter for interest, whether you use okc for this or not)

Comment author: Alicorn 11 September 2012 05:30:59PM 5 points [-]

STEMM

What is the extra M for? Googling yields a band.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 05:41:31PM 6 points [-]

Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, Medicine

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 September 2012 12:50:47AM 4 points [-]

Agree that the OKCupid technique probably works too. But I wasn't suggesting that we put up broad recruiting posters in the math department to solve the gender ratio thingy; I was suggesting that rationalist men seeking convertible mates try to date mathematical women. As Lucas observes, our community is still small enough that this provides a relatively large pool.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2012 01:02:33AM 1 point [-]

Good point! I understand what you are getting at. So long as it is also understood that mathematical does not necessarily equate to rational, and that rational does not require a person to be mathematical, etc.

Comment author: Desrtopa 12 September 2012 01:36:28AM 1 point [-]

A way to get around that: Personally, I've found that anyone I have a match of >94% on OKC has a high probability of being the aforementioned Rationalists Who Just Don't Know It Yet.

Really? Back when I first joined I wouldn't have been surprised by this, but they've fiddled around with the match algorithms since then, and 94% matches have gone from extremely rare compatibility to fairly trivial (and yes, I've checked against people whose match values I knew from before the algorithm changes to make sure it's not just a result of a larger userbase.) These days, I could browse through a considerable number of people with that match rating before finding anyone I would expect to relate to.

Comment author: drethelin 11 September 2012 04:56:17PM 0 points [-]

A useful corollary of the last point is that anyone with the HPMOR tag on their profile is likely to be a very high match :)