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.

Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)

20 [deleted] 09 September 2012 08:39AM

In another discussion going on right now, I posted this proposal, asking for feedback on this experiment. The feedback was positive, so here goes...

Original Post:

When these gender discussions come up, I am often tempted to write in with my own experiences and desires. But I generally don't because I don't want to generalize from one example, or claim to be the Voice of Women, etc. However, according to the last survey, I actually AM over 1% of the females on here, and so is every other woman. (i.e. there are less than 100 of us).

My idea is to put out a call for women on LessWrong to write openly about their experiences and desires in this community, and send them to me. I will anonymize them all, and put them all up under one post.

This would have a couple of benefits, including:

  • Anonymity allows for open expression- When you are in the vast minority, speaking out can feel like "swimming upstream," and so may not happen very much.

  • Putting all the women's responses in one posts helps figure out what is/is not a problem- Because of the gender ratio, most discussions on the topic are Men Talking About what Women Want, it can be hard to figure out what women are saying on the issues, versus what men are saying women say.

  • The plural of anecdote is data- If one woman says X, it is an anecdote, and very weak evidence. If 10% of women say X, it is much stronger evidence.

Note that with a lot of the above issues, one of the biggest problems in figuring out what is going on isn't purposeful misogyny or anything. Just the fact that the gender ratio is so skewed can make it difficult to hear women (think picking out one voice amongst ten). The idea I'm proposing is an attempt to work around this, not an attempt to marginalize men, who may also have important things to say, but would not be the focus of this investigation.

Even with a sample size of 10 responses (approximately the amount I would say is needed for this to be useful), according to the last survey, that is 10% of the women on this site. A sizable proportion, indeed.

 

In the following discussion, the idea was added that fellow LWers could submit questions to the Women of LW. The women can then use these as prompts in their narratives, if they like. If you are interested in submitting questions, please read the guidelines below in "Call for Questions" before posting.

If you are interested in submitting a narrative, please read the Call for Narrative section below.

 


 

Call for Narratives

RSVP -(ETA- We have reached the needed number of pre-commitments! You do not need to fill out the form, although you are welcome to, if you like) I think we need to have at least 6 people submitting narratives to provide both the scope and the anonymity to work. So before I ask women to spend their time writing these, I would like to make sure we will get enough submissions to publish. If you are going to write a narrative, fill out this (one-minute) form in the next couple days. If we get at least 6 women pre-committed to writing a narrative, we will move forward. I will PM or email you and let you know. If, in a week, we have not had at least 6 commitments, I will close the form.

Submissions- Feel free to submit, even if you did not RSVP. (that part is just to make sure we have minimum amount of people). Just send me a pm, dropbox link, or ask for my email. I'll add more information to this, as it gets worked out. 

Although the discussion that spurred this idea was about "creep" behaviors, please don't limit your responses to that subject only. Feel free to discuss any gender-related issues that you find relevant, especially responses to the questions that are posted in the thread below by your fellow LWers.

The anonymity is to provide you with the opportunity to express non-self-censored thoughts. It is ok if they are half-formed, stream-of-consciousness writings. My goal is to find out what the women on this site think, not nit-pick at the writing style. I don't want to limit submissions by saying that they have to have hours spent on formulating, organizing, and clarifying them. Write as much as you like. Don't worry about length. I will write tl;dr's if needed.

How I organize the submissions in the final post depends strongly on what is submitted to me. Separate out things that you think are identifiable to you, and I will put them in a section that is not affiliated with the rest of your submission.

Submissions are due Sept 25th!

Security- I am willing to work with people individually to make sure that their narratives aren't identifiable via writing style or little clues. Discussions that are obviously written by you (for example, talking about an incident many LWers know about) can be pulled out of your main narrative, and placed in a separate section. (reading the original exchange on the topic will clarify what I am trying to explain)

Verification- Submissions must be linked to active LW accounts (i.e. older than a week, more than 50 karma). This info will only be known to me. When possible, I would like to have validation (such as a link to a relevant post) that the account is of a female or transgendered user.  

 

 

Call for Questions

Feel free to ask questions you would like answered by the women of LW. To make everything easier for us, remember the following:

1) Put questions in response to the comment entitled "Question submissions"

2)Due to the nature of this experiment, all questions will automatically assumed to be operating under Crocker's Rules.

 3) Please only post one question per comment!

Upvote questions you would like to see answered. The questions with the highest amounts of upvotes are probably the most likely to be answered (based on my model of fellow LW Women).

Comments (364)

Sort By: Controversial
Comment author: [deleted] 09 September 2012 08:42:43AM 2 points [-]

Question Submissions

Feel free to ask questions you would like answered by the women of LW as a response to this comment.

Remember, Crocker's Rules will apply for the answers, and one question per comment, please!

Comment author: wedrifid 09 September 2012 10:23:25AM 3 points [-]

Do you like being treated as a celebrity in threads like this because you have boobs or would you prefer if people stopped obsessing over what sex you are?

Comment author: coffeespoons 09 September 2012 10:36:47AM *  2 points [-]

Is this comment intended as snark?

Comment author: wedrifid 09 September 2012 10:44:46AM *  5 points [-]

It is a sincere question. And I suspect I'd actually respect either an answer that the emphasis on sex and gender drama is tiresome or that the extra attention is flattering and empowering.

EDIT: The edit to the parent changed the meaning of my response. I'm glad I looked back. I should have quoted.

Comment author: coffeespoons 09 September 2012 11:27:42AM 1 point [-]

Would the answer to your question influence whether you see this call for narratives as being useful or not?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 September 2012 02:42:19PM 6 points [-]

Why do you think those are the only alternatives? Or an especially interesting pair of alternatives?

I've assumed that daenerys gets karma and attention (at a fairly ordinary level) because they're a good poster about difficult topics.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 September 2012 02:59:33PM 8 points [-]

I've assumed that daenerys gets karma and attention (at a fairly ordinary level) because they're a good poster about difficult topics.

I had understood the questions to be abstract and anonymised, not to daenerys.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 September 2012 03:21:34PM 4 points [-]

Fair point about the question being more general than I took it to be.

However, that makes it seem even weirder to me. Would you care to write about why you chose those alternatives?

Comment author: palladias 09 September 2012 01:15:52PM 7 points [-]

It's not really flattering (or, as Captain Hook would say "I want no such compliments!"). Being sexually harassed is not empowering, and trying to troubleshoot it isn't invigorating, it's just useful. I'm glad to help people avoid pattern matching to behaviors that look like threats/seem condescending/just aren't fun, and I think it's appropriate to spend a little time discussing them.

I wouldn't want this topic to keep seeding new threads the way the Endless September discussion did, but I don't think starting the discussion dooms us to that fate. And if you're worried about that threat, start another quite interesting thread on a different topic.

Comment author: lucidian 10 September 2012 03:56:50AM 6 points [-]

Some of each. I like attention, and bringing up my gender is a great way to get attention, because many people are interested in the rare female perspective on various LW topics. (It seems, though, that the attention I seek and receive on LW regarding gender is unrelated to my boobs.) When I don't want gender-related attention, I simply don't mention my gender; having a gender-neutral username is nice. Sometimes I like participating in discussions about gender/PUA/etc. without revealing that I'm female.

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 05:46:48AM *  14 points [-]

Actually, I have run into enough guys who treat me like I'm the last woman on earth because I'm a female nerd that I've developed an aversion to anything resembling that type of behavior. I was understanding about their enthusiasm at first, because I want a nerd, too, but it just doesn't work to date someone when they're acting like you're their last chance. They want to move too fast, they create expectations, they become biased and won't hear me when I talk about things that may be incompatibilities. That intensity throws a wrench into the process of getting to know someone. I grok their sense of necessity about being careful in how they present themselves, and I approve of this thread (There are a lot of things I wish I could say to guys - we need to communicate, and I have been wishing for an opportunity to do that), but on the individual level, I am easily spooked by signs of early attachment, overly optimistic probability estimates about us working out, and impatience to see signs of an established connection. I go on the alert for these signs of irrationality if a person treats me "like a celebrity" or similar. For the record none of the questions in this thread (so far) have bothered me.

As for whether it feels empowering, no. First of all, my sense of self-worth is not connected to my attractiveness. I am more than my ability to attract a mate. Secondly, being one of the few nerdy women has only served to highlight the fact that dating between nerds is pretty dysfunctional. At first, it was fun to have so much attention (other nerd spot) but it quickly became obvious that more attention does not convert into a larger ratio of real romance opportunities. There are a lot of incompatible guys trying to make me like them and hoping they can magically "make it work", and the ones who do seem good have problems like the above, and I feel a need to cut it short to prevent dysfunction. I think the crazy male-to-female ratio among nerds has caused more damage to my dating life than anything - so that's what I usually think of when I am reminded of it, not how "empowered" I feel.

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 15 September 2012 04:46:20AM 7 points [-]

I upvoted this post because it does a good job at presenting your perspective as a woman in such interactions.

However, I don't think it displays a lot of empathy or understanding for the other perspective. I'm not necessarily concluding that you lack such empathy or understanding, but I don't see it in this post. For example, this sentence:

I was understanding about their enthusiasm at first, because I want a nerd, too, but it just doesn't work to date someone when they're acting like you're their last chance.

This is not a very good model of nerdy guys who come on too strong. From their perspective, you (as a woman in a largely-male group) have many more romantic prospects than they do. They can't afford to wait and take things slow, because there's always someone else who is more assertive or has better timing. It's a scenario they've personally observed over and over again. Now, obviously it's detrimental for every guy in this situation to reason this way, as you remark:

I think the crazy male-to-female ratio among nerds has caused more damage to my dating life than anything

It's actually a very good example of the tragedy of the commons. Individually, going after every woman they meet seems like it should improve their chances; collectively, it ends up driving women away and reducing everyone's chances. We would expect rationalist/skeptic/etc. guys to figure this out, but they often don't. Why is this?

Try to imagine being completely romantically alone, through no choice of your own. Imagine this not over the course of weeks or months, but years or even decades. Not one date, not one kiss, hardly even any fun, flirty conversations with interesting, attractive people. This is the stark reality for many nerdy guys, and they often feel powerless to change it.

So, yes, oozing desperation is not a good romantic strategy, but it's not just due to simple social ineptitude or inexperience. While the nerdy guys are trying to keep in mind how women feel when they're constantly pursued (and this is something at which many of us can improve), women should please keep in mind just how lonely and desperate it can feel on the other side.

Comment author: Epiphany 15 September 2012 02:20:21PM *  13 points [-]

The reason I didn't focus on empathy in my previous comment is because I didn't see any reason to think that would be useful to you guys. In my view, we have problems that empathy can't solve. I see now that it would probably be good if I detail some of my empathetic experiences because there's a need to feel like women care and also explain why empathy can't solve the problems I listed. So I did both.

I met a really sweet guy on a dating site that I have things in common with and we started having wonderful conversations. Then I started to notice Asperger's symptoms. Instead of rejecting him immediately, I started giving him information about how he was coming across. We both decided that we were not romantically compatible (for unrelated reasons) but we talked frequently over the next year or so, and I kept giving him information to help him socially. I care about him a lot and it makes me sad to think of him ending up alone, so I helped as much as I could.

I make a point of letting guys know if they make a mistake, with few exceptions. If they seem beyond helping (the occasional crazies), I may back away slowly and vanish. If they send me a message on a dating site that ignores my profile, I ignore them. Otherwise they'll usually get some type of error message from me. I know they need feedback.

There have been three situations in the recent past where I met someone I really liked, but they made a mistake. In each of these three situations, I pointed out the mistake but kept talking to them because I liked them and was hoping they'd come around (well in one case I was hoping that my initial assessment was wrong). I don't do this for every kind of mistake. It really depends on what it is. Sometimes I meet someone I really like but I know I can't save it, so I won't try (though I usually tell them why I'm not continuing). But if I think there's a reasonable chance, I'll try.

It's not like I'm not understanding. It's that there are big problems that no amount of understanding can overcome. Let's look at each of the big problems I listed for a minute. Please consider that I am not deeming these "problems that understanding will not overcome" for arbitrary reasons. Everyone is naive when they're young, me included. Due to this, I got to find out the hard way that certain things will doom a new connection and that there's nothing I can do about it. Here is why they doom new connections:

Bias about incompatibilities and overly optimistic probability estimates

Imagine telling someone that you're not sure you're what they wanted, and they just brush it off and want to proceed anyway. If they're not willing to talk realistically about these things, a few problems result. First, when other people believe we're more compatible than we are, I find it unacceptable to continue to knowingly allow them to believe that. I feel a sense of responsibility about not leading people on, so this situation is unacceptable to me - I can't allow it. Second, I have to wonder whether they're leading me on. If they aren't willing to really look at a potential incompatibility and give me an honest answer, I may very well end up in a relationship that ends in heartbreak because I thought the person would accept something about me that they couldn't. If they're unwilling to face the truth to and make sure to tell me about these things in the beginning, they run a high risk of leading me on by accident. When people feel strongly attracted and that causes them bias like this, it's really, really hard to get through to them. When I have tried to get through to them, this has resulted in me burning out on trying. Worse, it breaks my trust (I can't trust them not to lead me on). The combination of not feeling okay with allowing them to be led on, not trusting that they won't lead me on and being burnt out by trying to wake them up results in an extremely risky situation that is likely to lead to heartbreak for one or both of us. Since there's no way to get an accurate idea of our compatibility in that situation, if I notice they're stuck on optimism bias, I quit.

Early Attachment

When people are attached, they act like they need things from me and expect me to fulfill those needs. Rewind to my teenage years when I had trouble saying no: if people acted like they needed things from me, I would try to make them happy. Since I wasn't doing these things based on a mutually beneficial relationship, I would inevitably burn out - I was trying to meet their needs, but wasn't getting my own needs met. You run out of juice that way. What's worse is that when you're doing something because you feel expected to instead of out of a genuine sense of love and connection, it's obvious. The result is that they sense this, and they demand more affection to compensate. For that reason, the burnout comes on rapidly. Of course, people who are attached too early don't see the flaw in being attached too early. If they did, they wouldn't become attached too early - or maybe they don't know how to avoid it. It's for those reasons, I think, that they never seem to go "Yes, I am attached too early." and take responsibility for their own needs. Instead, when the difference in attachment is noticed, their solution is to try anything they can think of to get me attached, too. We all know how hard it can be to stay rational in emotional situations. We know that relationships are governed by reality the same way everything else is. Therefore we can easily see that it's both important and difficult to stay rational regarding relationship decisions. Being subjected to somebody you like trying to make you feel attached to them puts you in a risky situation where you're likely to become irrational and make a relationship decision that explodes later on. Anyone who has experienced the misery of heartbreak can surely imagine how terrifying it is to be in a situation where you're rational enough to see that it's likely, but not certain you'll be strong enough to resist temptation. For that reason, people put in this situation tend to run screaming.

Moving too fast / expectations

The main reason moving too fast is unworkable for me is that it creates expectations I can't fulfill, and the reason unreasonable expectations are unworkable is because people don't let you change their expectations - instead, they are judging you by those expectations. For instance, they expect me to have more intense feelings for them than I'm ready for. Being unable to produce these, and unwilling to lie, I must tell them that I'm not feeling as interested as they are. If they really are expecting me to move as fast as they do the reaction I've had is that they assume I'm never going to be interested because I'm not intensely interested right away. Then they go into sour grapes mode. Attempting to convince them that I'm not sour would be hard enough in and of itself, but I'd also have to convince them that their expectations were unrealistic. That would come across like whining about being rejected or attempting to circumvent the person's judgment. When someone rejects me, it's best to respect their decision - no matter what it was based on - and move along.

I do understand that a lot of guys feel like they're going to be alone forever. I've had those feelings, too. Don't think that women don't ever feel that. It's worse for the guys because of the gender ratio, but it's not like we can't relate at all. Finding the right person is hard. I am complicated, and this results in there being a lot of incompatibilities to consider. It's not easy for me, either.

The truth is, I have no idea how I would ever make dysfunctional behaviors like these work for me in a dating context. It seems ill advised to even attempt to do that, so I won't. You said "oozing desperation is not a good romantic strategy, but it's not just due to simple social ineptitude or inexperience." and what I'm saying is "social ineptitude and inexperience do not just reek of desperation, they make dating broken in ways I can't work with." I hope you see the reason why I focused on these things in my post is not because I'm not empathetic but because, from my point of view, the biggest problem is that a lot of guys don't realize that the things they are doing make the connection unhealthy and dysfunctional.

It seems to be a common attitude that the women need to realize that the guys are having a really hard time just finding the sorts of women they like, let alone getting the practice needed for good social skills. I do realize this. In fact, I do not see the gender ratio problem as being "due to creepers" - to me, that's just another symptom of a different underlying cause which is nobody's fault.

It's actually a very good example of the tragedy of the commons. Individually, going after every woman they meet seems like it should improve their chances; collectively, it ends up driving women away and reducing everyone's chances. We would expect rationalist/skeptic/etc. guys to figure this out, but they often don't. Why is this?

I think they get sucked in by the experience. It takes a lot of emotional control to fight back things like optimism bias, attachment and unrealistic expectations when you're compelled by mating instincts, pressured by hormones and lifelong romantic dreams are clouding your mind. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of intelligent guys act like they're sort of "drunk" on the experience.

I developed emotional control through meditation to prevent myself from taking a "drunken" approach to romance. That's what I'd recommend for anyone having these problems.

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 15 September 2012 03:20:24PM 6 points [-]

Thank you very much for the thorough reply. I understand your position and experiences a lot better now, and I think we are broadly in agreement about what needs to happen on each side. I recognize that understanding alone is not going to solve these problems, especially in individual cases, but I think it's an important component for longer-term improvement. Judging from this post, you clearly do have empathy, and I could not reasonably ask any more in that regard than what you have already demonstrated.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2012 09:00:32AM 10 points [-]

Dating isn't charity work. If you go on dates and do what is, roughly speaking, the opposite of what works, you will probably fail.

If the girl you are dating is feeling particularly generous she may be willing to give you a reference to a guide on dating skills and tell you to "quit being a pussy", giving you a chance to have more success with the next woman that you date.

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 15 September 2012 03:27:20PM 1 point [-]

These are correct statements about the present. They are not very helpful for improving the future and solving the collective action problems that have led to this point.

I have not said that dating should be charity work. I only think that dating could be a little more charitable. Epiphany's follow-up comment pretty well illustrates what I mean.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2012 03:34:25PM -1 points [-]

These are correct statements about the present. They are not very helpful for improving the future and solving the collective action problems that have led to this point.

I disagree.

Comment author: Alicorn 15 September 2012 04:54:41AM 5 points [-]

women should please keep in mind just how lonely and desperate it can feel on the other side.

What is it that you would like us to do with this information?

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 15 September 2012 05:23:10AM 3 points [-]

Incorporate it into your models of such guys. I think this can help moderate problems such as being "easily spooked" and "cutting it short to prevent dysfunction." Instead of thinking that this guy is just too clingy/creepy/codependent/etc., dig a little deeper. If the flirtation or relationship just isn't going to work, then so be it, but we can at least strive to leave things a little nicer than how we found them. If I, as a guy, try to give other guys advice in these matters, it just seems like I'm trying to create a competitive advantage for myself.

I am trying to promote mutual understanding so that communication between the genders works better. I never have and likely never will experience being in such high romantic demand, so I have no visceral feeling for how women feel in that situation. The best I can do is to keep in mind what I've been told by women whenever such a conversation occurs. On the flip side, most women in rationalist/skeptic/etc. groups have never experienced such prolonged romantic isolation. If we want to increase group conscientiousness of issues which can drive women away, understanding needs to flow both ways.

Comment author: Alicorn 15 September 2012 06:34:30AM 3 points [-]

Instead of thinking that this guy is just too clingy/creepy/codependent/etc., dig a little deeper.

I could pause before attaching labels, but I don't think arbitrary guys who I don't enjoy interactions with ought to get particularly much attention in the form of "digging"; that doesn't make sense to me.

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 15 September 2012 06:39:44AM 1 point [-]

In the context of Epiphany's post, these aren't arbitrary guys:

the ones who do seem good have problems like the above

Comment author: Alicorn 15 September 2012 06:43:26AM 2 points [-]

I don't think I would enjoy a prolonged period of having to manage someone's desperation on the expectation that there is an otherwise functional guy under all of it. Plenty of guys come functional out of the package, so the opportunity cost of a lot of dysfunction-fussing-with is high. But your advice could be good for people who like fixer-uppers; it's probably safer and more productive than trying to tame a sociopath or something.

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 15 September 2012 07:14:15AM 3 points [-]

Plenty of guys come functional out of the package, so the opportunity cost of a lot of dysfunction-fussing-with is high.

Well, this conversation has managed to go right around in a circle:

From their perspective, you (as a woman in a largely-male group) have many more romantic prospects than they do.

Also, turning "dig a little deeper" into "a prolonged period" seems uncharitable.

Comment author: Epiphany 15 September 2012 02:37:47PM *  2 points [-]

If you read it in context, that means:

"the ones who do seem compatible have problems like the above"

There are a lot of incompatible guys trying to make me like them and hoping they can magically "make it work", and the ones who do seem good have problems like the above, and I feel a need to cut it short to prevent dysfunction.

You can be dysfunctional and incompatible, which is a fail. Or you can be functional and incompatible, also a fail. Or you can be compatible and dysfunctional, still a fail.

The only thing that's not a definite fail is compatible + functional.

Comment author: Solvent 20 September 2012 11:10:57AM *  1 point [-]

It would be lovely if you'd point that kind of thing out to the nerdy guy. One problem with being a nerdy guy is that a lack of romantic experience creates a positive feedback loop.

So yeah, it's great to point out what mistakes the guy made. See Epiphany's comment here.

(I have no doubt that you personally would do this, I'm just pointing this out for future reference. You might not remember, but I've actually talked to you about this positive feedback loop over IM before. I complimented you for doing something which would go towards breaking the cycle.)

Comment author: shminux 15 September 2012 05:14:34AM *  2 points [-]

Probably feel good about never having to be in this exact situation? I doubt that he implies that he deserves a pity lay. He can probably afford to pay for a professional escort once in a while, one of the solutions advocated by Dan Savage.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2012 09:32:38AM 7 points [-]

I am easily spooked by signs of early attachment, overly optimistic probability estimates about us working out, and impatience to see signs of an established connection. I go on the alert for these signs of irrationality if a person treats me "like a celebrity" or similar.

I can certainly understand how these behaviors would be incredibly unattractive, as well as representing 'red flags' indicating potential future complications in any relationship that is formed.

A corollary from a male perspective is that someone strongly predisposed from past experience towards seeing these signs of desperation and supplication can themselves make dating a drag. If ambiguous situations (or sometimes arguably non-ambiguous situations) are likely to be interpreted as motivated by weakness/low status/desparation/worship then avoiding such outcomes requires running far more strict, aggressive and constrained 'game' just to break even. Ultimately that lack of respect is just a huge turn off for me and one of the first things that'll make me think 'next' and move on to the next option.

Comment author: Epiphany 23 September 2012 03:28:13AM *  6 points [-]

You really made me think, Wedrifid. I chose not to respond to you right away because I wanted to avoid jumping to the conclusion that I'm doing everything right. So, I made myself go think it over.

Before you said this, I thought I was being patient enough with ambiguous "signs" and tolerant enough of harmless lapses in social skills. I've done a lot of emotional support for people who have problems, so I'm pretty confident that my tolerance of harmless social mistakes (as well as my ability to spot false positives on my creep radar) is well beyond adequate for dating nerds and misunderstood gifted people.

But signs only seem ambiguous to me if I realize that they're ambiguous. Are the signs that I think are unambiguous actually ambiguous? I don't know... I think the best approach is to develop a greater tolerance for them. So, I've got a goal now of "Be strong enough that even when guys do these things, I don't feel stressed out." Of course, tolerating these problems endlessly would lead to doing a lot of hand-holding, which would be draining, and that's not emotionally sustainable for me, but maybe a three strikes rule would be a good idea for me. That'd probably give a functional guy enough time to gain my trust in his sanity. Patience... yeah, I think I could use more.

And, you know, even if I have adequate patience and my tolerance of eccentricity is very high and I'm doing a good job of telling the difference between ambiguous and unambiguous signs of dysfunction, if guys are expecting me to be impatient, intolerant and judgmental, that's no good. I could lose a lot of opportunities because of their baggage due to the skewed gender ratio. I'm not sure what to do to counteract this.

You know, maybe we just need open communication. Like "Hi, I know there's a gender ratio issue, it's stressing everyone out when we try to date each other, why don't you and I just talk openly about these problems as we get to know each other?" That seems counter-intuitive on the one hand: there would be less of that sense of mystery and magic that people seem to expect but I'd really prefer bare reality at this point.

You have given me a lot to think about in your comment, Wedrifid. Thank you. (:

Comment author: Sarokrae 18 September 2012 05:14:12AM *  5 points [-]

I get so much free Karma for being a girl that it's making my dopamine system short out good sense sometimes. Karma is majorly addictive. I keep coming back to this topic because I'm getting so much of it.

I also think it's rather unfair that I often get way more karma for saying the same stuff as a man does, but with a "feminine anecdote" or "feminine caveat". My model of LW would have a very critical argument with a man trying to make evopsych arguments with nonobvious generalisations, but a post I make about it where I explicitly signal femaleness would get upvotes.

I think it's tremendously unhelpful that just signalling being a girl gets a post more karma (though I can understand that we want "more of this" as in women posting, I personally end up doing "more of this" as in signalling being female). My system 1 is just flat-out addicted though and doesn't even want me to complain.

Comment author: Douglas_Reay 09 September 2012 09:31:19AM 1 point [-]

What software feature (or policy) would you like to see added to the LessWrong forums and up/down vote system?

(There may or may not be a gender difference in perceived value of proposed features. I don't know. That's why I'm asking.)

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 06:31:16AM *  1 point [-]

I'd like a policy change:

Due to the widespread elitism or appearance of elitism, I am very concerned. People in the outside world aren't going to make distinctions between a group of people who call themselves "elitists" for harmless reasons versus people who believe they're "better than others" and are therefore entitled to special treatment or to make exceptions to the rules for themselves. It's also a weird surprise because it's in direct conflict with the site's vision - to spread rationality. Spreading rationality necessarily means transmitting it to people who are not good at rational thought, because focusing on transmitting it to people who are already good at it does not qualify as "spreading" it.

Imagine going into a room full of strangers and announcing that you are an elitist. Does this strike no one else as socially inept? Yet here we are in public, and people are announcing to the world of strangers that we are elitists. I don't like being smeared as an "elitist" by these people, I know the world will see me as guilty by association. The rest of the world isn't known for being rational. If they see a group of people calling themselves "elitists" they won't stop to make distinctions. They'll just err on the side of caution by assuming you guys are a bunch of overbearing jerks. This is about as smart, in my view, as going back in time few hundred years and claiming to enjoy casting magic spells. It doesn't matter if you're referring to an RPG game, you just invited a witch hunt.

Maybe you guys figure anybody intelligent will agree with your attitude. No. It's a perfectly constructive use of one's intelligence to take measures to avoid committing social suicide. That this group allows itself to be associated with the term "elitism" - that nobody moderates those comments and that they're being voted up to the sky - is a public relations disaster waiting to happen. At first, it didn't even occur to me that the people here might not realize that. That's such a no brainer to me, I assumed you didn't care because you really do think you're better than them, so you can afford to provoke the outside world and just ignore their ire. Now, I am considering that the people on this website may just be socially inept enough to do that and not realize how crazy it looks to non-elitist intellectuals like me.

As I've said before, maintaining quality does not require you to wear a scary word that is used to mean "overbearing jerk". I think you guys need a no elitism policy which includes: A.) Not letting people behave in an abusive or insulting way toward people who may not have the same education or IQ. B.) Not smearing the organization by using the word "elitist" lightly to describe LessWrong. I don't want to associate myself with an elitist or "elitist" organization. The only reason I haven't quit already is because I still have a sense of possibility that you guys will eventually grok what an assassination you're launching against your reputations and I think that the good things about this group and the vision you're gathered around make it worth continuing to discuss the topic of elitism with you.

Comment author: Larks 15 September 2012 07:42:07AM 3 points [-]

Imagine going into a room full of strangers and announcing that you are an elitist. Does this strike no one else as socially inept?

Going into a room full of strangers and announcing I was a socialist, or an egalitarian, or a libertarian, or a conservative, etc. would be socially inept. In fact, announcing I was a human or a carbon-based lifeform or a biped would be socially inept too. It's nothing special about elitism.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 September 2012 07:12:28AM *  3 points [-]

Is "elitism" perhaps a particularly bad word in the US but not other parts of the world? For example I've always found the accusation of US politicians being "elitist" as mildly confusing, like something that just wouldn't happen in my countries political discourse.

Comment author: Kindly 14 September 2012 01:01:29PM 6 points [-]

You're over-reacting to one comment, which made its point well despite using a word you disapprove of. It's not as though Less Wrong identifies itself to the world at large as elitist (although some people, and indeed some users here, may describe it that way).

Furthermore, a policy of "not using the word "elitist"" is completely orthogonal to a policy of "not being abusive to lower IQ people". What makes you think the latter is necessary?

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 07:29:33PM *  -2 points [-]

What makes you think the latter is necessary?

(I accidentally misread Kindlys post, the response to his actual wording is in a comment below.)

Would you go into a room full of strangers and announce that you're an elitist? Have you ever tried talking about this with everyday people? Talking about intellectual differences, giftedness, elitism, etc. often triggers a bad reaction, even if you try to do it carefully. This is socially inept to an extreme. When the masses don't like something, they don't stop to make distinctions about it. If you guys aren't doing anything to prevent users from smearing the whole organization as "elitist" then all of you are going to be deemed guilty by association. There are people using their real names here - their IRL reputations may be effected by elitism or the appearance of elitism. Just as you shouldn't abuse a person by slandering them, you shouldn't abuse a group of people by smearing them all as elitists - unless they deserve that. That's why it's important - because people like me take offense to being labeled an "elitist", knowing what resentment that can provoke in the average Joe, and I don't appreciate being smeared this way with the rest of you.

Also, don't misquote my wording. What I said was that people shouldn't be let to smear LessWrong by using the word "elitism" lightly. That's different from banning it from use. I'm essentially saying "don't let them slander the group". Of course, if you guys really do think you're better than everyone else and that you should have special treatment and exceptions to rules, go ahead and use the word "elitist" to describe that, as it will give the rest of the world the right idea. I will definitely be leaving if that's what the group decides, though, and you'll be scaring off the other non elitist intellectuals and donations from anyone who isn't an intellectual elitist.

Comment author: Kindly 14 September 2012 08:46:03PM *  0 points [-]

Sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you. When I said "a policy of "not using the word "elitist""" I meant it as shorthand for the second policy you suggested (the one under the letter B), not as a summary.

And I'm afraid you misunderstood my question. I didn't mean to ask why "Not letting people behave in an abusive or insulting way toward people who may not have the same education or IQ" is a good idea -- that's pretty much obvious. What my question was, what makes you think this needs to be an explicit policy?

(By the way, I would appreciate it if you didn't confuse my own point of view with the "Less Wrong point of view". If such a thing even exists, I'm not a spokesperson for it.)

Comment author: Epiphany 15 September 2012 01:20:16AM *  -2 points [-]

Oh I misread your post. Okay. Now I am baffled as to why you don't seem to agree that it would be good to have a policy. Well here are a few reasons:

1.) If there's no formal policy against elitism, and there are a bunch of people creating the appearance of elitism on the site, that looks bad. It looks much better if we have it in writing that the people who run the site don't want elitism.

2.) It's obvious to you and me that that's a bad way to act, but it's not obvious to everybody. If a bunch of people create the appearance of elitism on a website, might it be because they are elitists? That was what I thought at first... I didn't think a group of people would be crazy enough to brand themselves as elitists unless they actually were elitists. I did think to question that perception, but it still seems like a valid question to ask whether the reason these people seem so willing to look like elitists might be a sign that they actually are.

3.) If a bunch of people create the appearance of elitism on a website, isn't that likely to draw elitists? I would think so. And if people are getting away with creating the appearance of elitism, that may encourage elitists who are attracted to this site from acting in an abusive manner. Having a policy may prevent that or encourage moderators to do something about it after the fact.

Sorry if the misinterpretation annoyed you.

Comment author: Kindly 15 September 2012 01:45:26AM *  1 point [-]

There are two broad reasons why one might have such a policy.

First, if in fact it were a common tendency on Less Wrong to dismiss outsiders as inferior (based on education or IQ? I don't think this is necessary for elitism, but you seem to be focused on these) then the policy might be a step to help prevent this. I don't see such a tendency, and I think I'm more disgusted than average by people saying things like "If you have less than 130 IQ, you're not worth talking to". Do you have examples of people actually acting like this? Note that this is different from saying that people outside Less Wrong have lower standards for discussion.

Second, if Less Wrong appears to be "elitist", an "anti-elitist" formal policy might counter this appearance. I believe this is what you're suggesting. I don't think this is a good idea. First of all, I don't think it would work. For example, if I saw a forum's policy explicitly state "No racist comments will be condoned" then I would actually think racism is more of a problem than average on that forum.

Furthermore, I read Less Wrong because people here prefer not to say one thing to mean another, which is exactly what this is suggesting. I expect users here to notice the difference between a policy that does something, and one that puts up an appearance of doing something. I don't want a policy of the second kind.

Comment author: Alicorn 14 September 2012 08:02:29PM 8 points [-]

Can you stop using the word "elitist"? You can go on mentioning it, since part of your claim seems to be about where that word should and should not appear, but please stop using it.

Comment author: Epiphany 15 September 2012 01:13:40AM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Comment author: Alicorn 15 September 2012 01:16:05AM 4 points [-]

Use-mention distinction. Please stop using the word "elitism".

Comment author: Alicorn 09 September 2012 06:05:28PM 2 points [-]

I want more support for the public votes feature (I want it to work backwards and on comments). I'd also like built-in polling support.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 September 2012 10:19:07PM 3 points [-]

I'm new to less wrong so my opinions may not be seen to count as much as more regular users. But anyway, I definitely think the voting should be anonymous in order to avoid petty conflicts. I also think there may be some flaws in the voting system. While I think it is a good thing that long time users and regular contributors to less wrong as well as interesting and insightful comments are recognised and rewarded for their input with karma points I feel there may also be some downsides: For example in some situations people may want to say something that conflicts with the opinion of the majority of users commenting on a thread but decide against it due to the prospect of being down voted (as well as comments). I noticed that in this thread alicorn said she had felt this way about commenting on threads about gender issues. Also if someone decides to say something controversial anyway (compared to other attitudes on the thread) this may get down voted and become invisible. I think this is bad because it is preferable to have a variety of views represented on any thread or the discussion may suffer due to one sidedness. I have read before that people tend to seek out those who share their view point and ignore opposing opinions but i think it would be better to have a debate when such situations arise rather than completely sidelining views that we don't agree with which is a danger with the down voting system. Of course it is a different case when a comment is unacceptable to the standards of the community by being obscene etc but that could be dealt with by the "report" function. I don't think the up/ down vote system should be abandoned but maybe some modifications could be made.

Comment author: lucidian 10 September 2012 03:30:35AM 7 points [-]

I'd like an option to hide all karma scores. There's two reasons for this:

  • I worry that by seeing the karma of a post before reading the post, I will be unfairly biased toward or against that post. I'd really like to make up my own mind about these things before seeing what the community has decided. I'm pretty sure my opinions change drasticallly based on the opinions of the group I'm in, and this seems counterproductive for rationality (although very useful for social cohesion).

  • I'm embarrassed to admit that karma scores affect my emotions a lot. Each time I lose a karma point, it's like an emotional punch in the face. If someone politely disagreed with my post, I would not have this reaction. If someone violently disagreed with my post, I'd either be slightly upset, very amused, or both. But when I lose a karma point, I feel intense shame. Also, when I gain karma, I feel intense pride. When I post here, I feel like I'm talking to "win karma", not to engage in an interesting discussion with thoughtful, intelligent people. This isn't a motivation/reaction I like to have, and that's why I almost never post here, and instead spend all my time on IRC. Basically, because of the karma system, I try not to say anything that might be disapproved of, and I'm reluctant to engage in candid discussion. Those of you who know me on IRC or IRL might be surprised to hear this, because in those situations I almost always discuss my thoughts/opinions candidly without fearing social rejection; in fact, in those situations, I genuinely don't care whether I'm rejected. I don't know why the karma system on LW is so different for me. Anyway, I'm going to try to train my emotional system to ignore karma altogether the way I've trained it not to care about IRL rejection; we'll see how that goes.

Comment author: Alicorn 10 September 2012 03:43:56AM *  8 points [-]

There is a browser extension called the anti-kibitzer that will, among other things, hide karma scores on comments/posts.

Comment author: lucidian 10 September 2012 04:01:06AM 0 points [-]

=O Thanks muchly! I'm trying it out right now. It doesn't seem to work properly, but perhaps I'm doing it wrong; I'll play with it more.

Comment author: shminux 14 September 2012 05:24:06PM *  3 points [-]

But when I lose a karma point, I feel intense shame.

it might be worth it for you to explore why this happens, by trying to trace the hidden logic leading to this emotion. This might help in other, real-life situations when a similar emotion happens (whether they are related or not to the silent public disapproval with no recourse that downvoting is usually perceived as).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 September 2012 06:27:23PM *  8 points [-]

Trn (a comprehensive system for managing long discussions which was used on usenet and was never rewritten for the web). I'm expecting an age difference on this one, not a gender difference.

Up-down karma vote histories.

However, I'm fine with anonymous voting. I think we'd get even more conflict and less good voting if votes had names attached to them.

Built-in polling would be excellent, preferably with some way of handling whether people's poll answers were correlated. I don't know whether most polling systems have this-- the only one I've used is livejournal, and it doesn't.

Comment author: ciphergoth 11 September 2012 06:43:20PM 3 points [-]

Oh Gods yes, I wish for Trn, or better still, Gnus.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 11 September 2012 09:30:53AM 0 points [-]

What tricks do you use to control yourself while tripping when you dont have people you trust to help you? I have a inkling that the reason I have a harder time teaching role play control to girls is somewhat to do with gender roles but insofar I've failed at deducing why.

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 07:02:59AM 1 point [-]

I don't do a lot of role-playing, don't know what tripping is (though I can guess) and don't know why someone would need to trust someone to help with it.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 September 2012 07:28:23AM 4 points [-]

Would you be interested in having regular "Woman Oriented" threads (such as this one)? If so, how often? I'll set a range from once per month, to once per year.

(My experience is that every time a rationalist gathering becomes at least 50% female, conversation inevitably turns to Optimal Bras (braspace is large, and the optimal choice is highly situational.) or BC.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 September 2012 02:31:23AM 2 points [-]

Voted up because it was a reasonable question. I don't think it needed to be voted down as though it was a campaign.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 September 2012 08:54:21AM *  13 points [-]

Would you be interested in having regular "Woman Oriented" threads (such as this one)? If so, how often? I'll set a range from once per month, to once per year.

Oh please no! Don't institutionalize gender drama. Women may make use of the fact that they also happen to be real people and write what they want to say in the "open thread" that is already created once a month. If their sex happens for some reason to be relevant to what they wish to say they can make note of it in the comment in the same way that people can write about their nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation or hair colour.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 09 September 2012 12:40:23PM 3 points [-]

If men think more like economists than women, then what explains this difference?

Comment author: Epiphany 26 September 2012 03:54:21AM 1 point [-]

Brain differences are nowhere near the entire story. There are so many different chemicals that can be floating around in your brain at any given time. Oxytocin might give you some insight here. They've done studies that showed that this hormone increases things like trust, trustworthiness, generosity, empathy and morality.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html

This same video explains that testosterone increases selfishness and punishing behaviors. Different sources say different things about how oxytocin affects each gender, but there's a theme where they're saying the women either have higher oxytocin or stronger reactions to it or that testosterone interferes with it, etc. Essentially the message in the theories is "Women more frequently act on the influence of oxytocin".

Here is what this is like for me:

Imagine, for a moment, feeling ten times less selfish (the video says men have 10x the testosterone, not sure if our subjective experiences correspond exactly, but that's my guess for the following hypothetical scenarios). Now imagine being high every time you do something nice. For me, this means the world feels beautiful, I feel secure and peaceful, and I feel satisfied in a way that nothing else can match.

Imagine someone doing something bad to you. Imagine you're not even selfish enough to be angry. I don't always stay calm, but the things that don't make me angry might surprise you. Now imagine feeling sorry for the person instead of worrying about yourself. This is what it feels like to be me. People like me have to work hard on developing rational self-interest. You've probably wondered about the phenomenon where a lot of women get attached to an abusive man and keep trying to love him into being a better person even though he's abusing her. I haven't had problems saying no since my early twenties, but it took work to learn to be strong enough to say no and be firm. These hormonal differences may explain that.

If you're motivated by helping, and you even feel sorry for people who hurt you, how much motivation do you have to go out and learn more about how to make money? If your brain rewards you with a high whenever you're nice to someone, how much more time would you want to spend doing that? If what gratifies you is expressing empathy, this changes your priorities by, at the very least, competing with your other interests. In my case, I prefer playing helping roles so much that it trumps just about everything else for me. Here is a chart that shows the results of some studies done to compare the interests of highly intelligent adult men and women (I figure if the LW surveys are right about member's IQs being in the 140s on average, this chart is more applicable here than a random one).

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10176.aspx

Notice things like the women are much more interested in community service, social contacts and teaching children (all of which require caring) and men are more interested in law (which demands an aggressive personality because you're fighting over who wins). Sure, you can help people with money, but that way, you give them the most benefit while spending the least amount of time actually interacting with them. Most people have empathy and like helping but not everyone can do it full-time. I, on the other hand, like helping so much I can't be bothered to spend a large amount of time on money. After I clock out at the end of the day, it's time for me to help someone.

If oxytocin tends to affect the genders differently (or if testosterone contradicts it), this explains a lot of gender differences - why men tend to be more aggressive, why women tend to be more socially accommodating and it may explain why they aren't as interested in economics - they may just prefer roles that require caring instead.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 09 September 2012 02:13:22PM 2 points [-]

Do men and women suffer from the same cognitive biases (and to the same extent)?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 09 September 2012 03:47:01PM *  11 points [-]

Sorry.

Comment author: Dreaded_Anomaly 11 September 2012 02:31:28AM 3 points [-]

The unbalanced gender ratio in the atheist/skeptic/rationalist spheres (and the science/programming spheres, more generally) has negative effects on both genders. Women may feel objectified and marginalized, while men may feel romantically frustrated and hopeless. These reactions can lead to mutually defeating behavior. Typical responses - for women, abandoning those spheres; for men, acting inappropriately toward women - only widen the gender divide and make the problems worse.

I am interested in working toward better outcomes for both genders. My question for the women of LW is this: what specific advice do you have, for either gender, that you think will improve the situation? How confident are you that your advice will be helpful, and on what evidence do you base that confidence?

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2012 04:54:01AM 5 points [-]

My question for the women of LW is this: what specific advice do you have, for either gender, that you think will improve the situation?

For men: Consider the women in the subculture "male for all social purposes" and seek romantic interests elsewhere.

Comment author: Alicorn 11 September 2012 04:57:23AM 1 point [-]

But I like dating subculture boys. Also, the bisexual one I see sometimes would not be deterred by considering me male for all social purposes.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2012 05:53:34AM 7 points [-]

But I like dating subculture boys.

And yet for all your interest and your polyhacking I suspect that you and those like you just don't have sufficient time or sexual and romantic interest to satisfy the demand. (My apologies if I have underestimated your enthusiasm and endurance!) This inflates your value and means at a grossly simplified level that for a given level of attractiveness a male that doesn't qualify to date you within this culture may attract women outside the subculture as attractive to you. Those that do qualify to date you could expect general population dating opportunities with women who are even sexier than you, or better at sport or who perhaps have neck-down alopecia.

I'm sure you'll not be lacking for available, interested males. Unless all the males started looking elsewhere and didn't notice that the incentives at the margin had changed. They'd also have to resist any overt advances you should happen to make!

Also, the bisexual one I see sometimes would not be deterred by considering me male for all social purposes.

Of course bisexual males also have more potential romantic interests, not being limited to the scarce female population. Perhaps that means this 'avoid scarcity' principle doesn't even need special case treatment for bisexual males. Homosexual males on the other hand may get all confused if they try to implement it!

Comment author: lucidian 11 September 2012 11:16:02AM 2 points [-]

I am a girl and I approve of this suggestion. I'll also note that LW has been very good about this in all of my experiences here (discussion forum, IRC, and meetups IRL).

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 September 2012 06:56:42AM 11 points [-]

I've only ever seen one case of a man who'd previously had a rationalist mate going back to nonrationalist mates afterward. The reason why the gender skew of our culture is a mating problem for men is that once you go rationalist you don't go back.

"Go to the physics department, find a woman you consider attractive, point her at HPMOR, and see if anything develops" sounds like more useful advice to me.

For (straight) men who insist on dating externally, asking a woman whether she would prefer a certainty of $500 or a 15% chance at $1 million seems likely to be a surprisingly good filter on potential mates. I didn't believe it either as first, but I've verified that many women, and in at least one case a female grad-student doing advanced math homework, says she would rather have the $500; while every woman I've tested inside our community - regardless of her math/science/economics level or her ability to talk glibly about explicit rationality - takes the 15% chance at $1M with a puzzled look and 'Is this a trick question?'

Comment author: mrglwrf 14 September 2012 03:21:18PM -2 points [-]

If you really need the $500, why throw that away for a one-off, low odds chance for more? The first $500 almost certainly has greater marginal utility than the second, and possibly more than the next 1,999 put together. And that's assuming the offer is totally legit, which is not very rational.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 14 September 2012 03:35:58PM 7 points [-]

first $500 almost certainly has greater marginal utility than the second, and possibly more than the next 1,999 put together.

Sure, if they're to starve (or freeze to death) within the month if not for this money, then certainly: accepting the bet would then become a 85% chance of death vs a 15% chance at a million. And rejecting a 85% chance of death is reasonable, even in the face of a 15% chance at a million.

But relatively very few of the people offered the choice would really be so much in need. There's no point in finding ways to excuse simple irrationality by bringing in extreme scenarios that would justify it in some implausible cases....

Comment author: mrglwrf 14 September 2012 04:14:16PM -2 points [-]

Simple irrationality would be taking the implausible scenario both seriously and at face value. A priori, the likelihood of someone honestly offering you money for nothing is extremely low, as is the likelihood that they even have a million dollars to give away. If you don't take the scenario seriously, it's just a case of guessing the teacher's password. If you do take it seriously, it would not be rational in most contexts take the offer at face value, in which case "$500 now" has about as a good an expected pay-off as any, and at least provides guaranteed evidence of the offer's legitimacy.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 14 September 2012 05:02:09PM *  5 points [-]

At this point you're just using pedantry to dismiss the very concept of hypothetical questions. The question is simple: What option you would take with the mentioned choices at hand as a given situation: Whether you'd prefer the certainty of 500 dollars or a 15% chance at 1 million.

As simple as that. You really don't have to estimate how unlikely you're to be given this option in reality. That's why it's called a "hypothetical" question.

And the question is likewise not about what you would do if you were in danger of starving to death. Just what you would do. You're free to offer a conditional response (e.g. "I'd choose the 15% chance at a million, except if I was dead broke and in danger of immediate starvation), but just claiming that all possible responses are equally valid, regardless of conditions, just won't fly.

I'm tapping out.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 08:10:31AM 5 points [-]

once you go rationalist you don't go back.

This.

True for both genders.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 September 2012 09:06:52AM 6 points [-]

Yep, though it's weaker evidence to observe that (straight) female rationalists don't go back when they can have their pick of mates and/or an entire harem by staying.

Actually, I have seen a couple of cases of women using their newly acquired Sanity Attractiveness Points(*) to pull in hot guys they want from outside the community, though in both such cases they still had rationalist mates on the side.

(*) = According to the one woman whose case I know in detail, this is apparently a pretty strong effect - a female from within rationalist culture, dealing with a guy from outside rationalist culture who has an unmet need for sanity, may appear unto him as a Goddess. Sort of the dating equivalent of what happens when people with unmet needs discover LW or read HPMOR.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2012 09:16:49AM 1 point [-]

to pull in hot guys they want from outside the community, though in both such cases they still had rationalist mates on the side.

Now that is a strategy I can endorse.

According to the one woman whose case I know in detail, this is apparently a pretty strong effect - a female from within rationalist culture, dealing with a guy from outside rationalist culture who has an unmet need for sanity, may appear unto him as a Goddess.

I could believe that.

Comment author: coffeespoons 11 September 2012 04:36:31PM 4 points [-]

I wonder what effect rationalist culture has on the attractiveness of guys who date outside the community. Are they more or less appealing than non-rationalist guys?

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2012 08:20:44AM *  13 points [-]

I've only ever seen one case of a man who'd previously had a rationalist mate going back to nonrationalist mates afterward.

I have dated rationalists and gone back. Rationalist subculture affiliations count very little to me. It doesn't make people all that rational and does make people more annoying when they are, in fact, being irrational. I do enjoy having some shared interests with those I date but honestly I'd assign more 'attraction' points for a fitness obsession, enjoyment of games (board games, cards) or, say, medical knowledge than "being a rationalist".

The reason why the gender skew of our culture is a mating problem for men is that once you go rationalist you don't go back.

That sounds like an argument that one shouldn't date a rationalist even when an attractive option is willing and available. You don't want to permanently degrade your future options for (possibly) short term pleasure with what is immediately before you.

"Go to the physics department, find a woman you consider attractive, point her at HPMOR, and see if anything develops" sounds like more useful advice to me.

If you say so yourself!

I don't know, if a woman had tried that with me she'd have found I didn't make it through to the end (didn't read the last batch after the pause before it). And she'd find that I argue with the author, rejecting some of the "rationalist" morals he promotes in the chapters that get preachy. If she is too enarmored of the work it could disqualify me!

For (straight) men who insist on dating externally, asking a woman whether she would prefer a certainty of $500 or a 15% chance at $1 million seems likely to be a surprisingly good filter on potential mates.

If I happen to marry (or otherwise have significant resource sharing with) a woman who is poor at this kind of decision making I'll first make sure she is willing to let me have final say on critical financial decisions. (Irrational and stubborn or egotistic about it is what would black-ball her.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 September 2012 09:04:07AM 0 points [-]

I hate to No-True-Scotswoman you but I can't help but wonder exactly how rational she was - the cases I know have all been drawn from either East Coast or West Coast whole communities with corresponding personal transmission of skills.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 11 September 2012 09:34:18AM 5 points [-]

You two are so cute when your argue!!!

Comment author: Sarokrae 14 September 2012 07:15:00AM 5 points [-]

I think a statement more likely than "once you go rational you can't go back" is "once you go luminous you can't go back". I think my OH has expressed something along the lines of it just being too much effort when he considers dating someone who can't just tell him if they are having system 1 issues.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 September 2012 04:55:01PM 7 points [-]

Would it be useful to distinguish between rationalist subculture affiliation and habitually rational?

Comment author: wedrifid 11 September 2012 04:57:00PM 1 point [-]

Would it be useful to distinguish between rationalist subculture affiliation and habitually rational?

Probably. In this case it is the subculture affiliation that matters---given the context of considering what strategies to use in response to the gender imbalance therein.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 05:10:54PM 2 points [-]

I think this is a useful distinction. I care much more about "habitually rational" than "subculture affiliation," when it comes to social interactions.

Comment author: ciphergoth 12 September 2012 06:49:32AM 5 points [-]

I would be curious to know how people answer given the opportunity to spend $500 on a $1M/15% lottery ticket.

Comment author: katydee 12 September 2012 10:38:55AM *  5 points [-]

That depends a lot on the nature of the lottery. If it was a typical lottery that for some reason had a 15% chance to win, a $500 ticket would not be worth it as all, since thousands of people would win and split the prize amongst themselves and the expected value would be much less than you would assume at first glance.

If it's just "spend $500 for a 15% chance of gaining a million," though, I'd take as many tickets as I could get!

Comment author: Alicorn 12 September 2012 06:52:37AM *  4 points [-]

I might actually not want to buy one. (When no loss is involved I take the chance at a million.) I might want to buy five, or go in together with several friends on one.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 September 2012 08:45:01AM 7 points [-]

(instantaneous reflex activated)

What if I gave you $500, then asked you if you wanted to spend it on the ticket?

I'd also like to know whether some unexpected expense, like needing a $500 dental crown, would change your mind about accepting the free $500 instead of the free ticket.

Comment author: Alicorn 12 September 2012 03:26:28PM 1 point [-]

If you gave me $500 and then immediately alerted me to the availability of a ticket you'd probably catch me before the $500 entered the "my money" mental bin, because I'd still be a little confused about why you randomly handed me $500 and expect to have to give it back.

Risks of medium-sized unexpected expenses like that are already factored into how conservative I am about handling money on this scale, so I don't think that would have an effect.

Comment author: Vaniver 12 September 2012 01:11:09AM 8 points [-]

For (straight) men who insist on dating externally, asking a woman whether she would prefer a certainty of $500 or a 15% chance at $1 million seems likely to be a surprisingly good filter on potential mates. I didn't believe it either as first, but I've verified that many women, and in at least one case a female grad-student doing advanced math homework, says she would rather have the $500; while every woman I've tested inside our community - regardless of her math/science/economics level or her ability to talk glibly about explicit rationality - takes the 15% chance at $1M with a puzzled look and 'Is this a trick question?'

I have a (male) friend who answered $500 to this question. He teaches math (at the middle school level). It was a sad day.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 September 2012 02:15:08AM 6 points [-]

Of course it's not just women! Women (outside the community, that is) are more likely to respond that way than men, but that's from a study on both risk aversion and hyperbolic discounting which showed that "Women can't take small risks and men are creatures of the now", with both effects diminishing as scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test increased.

I now wonder what would happen if I asked a man on the street to choose between $500 immediately or $1 million in 10 years (= 113% annual interest) - a version that extreme wasn't in the original study, just the extreme version of the risk-aversion Q. I wouldn't expect it to work, but then I wouldn't have expected it to work with risk aversion either!

Comment author: TheOtherDave 12 September 2012 04:03:55AM 7 points [-]

I would expect that to depend a great deal on their confidence that you would in fact provide $1 million in ten years.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2012 02:31:54AM 6 points [-]

Single point of evidence- I would have to fight my inner self REALLY hard to choose the 15% chance at a million. (Inner turmoil!! Logic says Do Thing A, but I really Don't Want To!!).

OTOH, the million in ten years is intuitively obvious to me and choosing it would be what I would've done even PRE-rationality.

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 08:04:10AM *  0 points [-]

I have evidence-based insight into the gender ratio issue. Although it is not a solution, I think it will help everyone understand the problem better.

I have some unpleasant news which is related to IQ (and LessWrong has a higher than average IQ according to the member surveys). There's something up with genetics and intelligence that goes like this (references included): Although men's and women's IQs are the same on average, there are far more gifted men than women. The explanation is that high intelligence is due to a mutation. Men are more affected by mutations. Therefore they are about twice as likely to get both beneficial and detrimental intelligence mutations, which is why they are unbalanced for gifted populations but even out in population averages. "Diseases inherited in an X-linked recessive pattern mostly affect males, because a second X chromosome usually protects females from showing symptoms." (From: How Are Genetic Disorders Inherited?) See also: Mensa's demographics page where they report a 33% female : 66% male ratio (for the top 2% in IQ).

I've heard it reported by people with very high IQs that the higher the IQ range, the worse the gap is. This may be true if higher IQs require multiple mutations.

If refining rationality, science, etc. or the specific forms of these that interest LW members tend to appeal most to people with high IQs, this ratio is probably, unfortunately, going to affect groups like these whatever you do. Of course, if the male to female ratio is 2:1 in Mensa (unsure what their average IQ is, just that the minimum is the top 2%) this means there's probably room for improvement. However, short of genetic engineering or brain implants, the gender ratio problem is likely to persist for high IQ groups like this even if a perfect strategy was used for making women feel more comfortable.

If the important thing is to be able to have children one day, then creating or using a service for finding intelligent women who are willing to have children for others would be one way.

Another idea might be encouraging women to work extra hard to refine their rational thinking skills, explaining that they'll interest more intelligent men that way. As we know, women can be picky and they tend to have a preference for intelligence. If they know that smart guys are looking for rational women, some of them may devote attention to it the way that many women currently devote attention to hair and make-up. Not all women will be interested, and it won't solve the incompatibilities that IQ differences cause, but it may help bridge gaps that aren't too great and lead to there being more female rationalists.

I feel that addressing the "creepiness" issues could go a long way to get interested women interacting more. Nerdy men are definitely my type but I'm often put off by their behavior. I'd like to date more, but the behaviors I describe here are disheartening, so I'm not nearly as motivated as I could be. Understanding women better is a great first step. I'm glad to see that the guys are looking into what's going on.

Unfortunately, I can't provide you advice or evidence and don't know that anybody can - I'm not aware of any projects or experiments to specifically try to increase the number of females in a male dominated social group.

Comment author: Sarokrae 11 September 2012 05:08:25AM *  14 points [-]

For women: you have a great deal of control over how other people react to you. You can take some responsibility for how you are perceived.

personal anecdote: I'm a female maths undergrad, and most of my social circle is male. First term there I concentrated on making friends, so I adopted casual, unisex clothing styles. I attracted male attention only when I dressed in a stereotypically girly way for fancy dress parties and social events.

Second term I was on a mate hunt, so I overhhauled my wardrobe and started wearing skirts and behaving in a mate-attracting way. According to my now OH, that's when he "realised I was a girl".

So basically if you don't want men to view you as a potential mate, it's helpful to not act like one. Think hoodies and ill-fitting jeans. And if you have got attracting mates in the back of your mind, and your body language shows it, then you shouldn't be surprised if men notice you.

Second piece of advice for women where it applies: tracking your menstrual cycle is the easiest first step towards luminosity. Different hormones induce different kinds of bias, and also prompt changes in body language and attitude, which may cause people to react differently. The effects can then be harnessed or corrected for.

Comment author: lucidian 11 September 2012 11:25:51AM 2 points [-]

This strategy makes a lot of sense, but I wonder whether it's applicable to professional settings. Jeans and a hoodie don't just signal nongirliness; they also signal casualness. Does anyone know of equivalently gender-neutral clothes that are appropriate for formal settings? Or is it unnecessary because the formality prevents people from making unwanted advances anyway?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 September 2012 05:01:58PM 8 points [-]

For women: you can control how other people react to you. You can take responsibility for how you are perceived.

This is an overgeneralization. There are ways to improve the odds, but no guarantees.

Comment author: Sarokrae 11 September 2012 11:29:04PM 4 points [-]

Agreed and edited.

Comment author: coffeespoons 11 September 2012 04:45:39PM *  3 points [-]

Another problem that I can see is that if I dress in attractive clothes and start dating someone, they might not want me to start dressing in unflattering clothes after we start dating (esp if looking like a girl is part of what attracted them to me). I either have to disappoint my new partner and wear baggy clothes, or to continue wearing flattering clothes and continue to deal with guys perceiving me as available.

ETA: I tend to go for guys who have a sense of style (not always, but often) and I'd be disappointed it they started wearing baggy jeans and hoodies because "now I have a girlfriend I don't have to make an effort."

Comment author: Sarokrae 11 September 2012 11:11:33PM *  4 points [-]

There are other ways of deflecting male attention. If you're at a social event alone, instead of signaling 'I am not a potential mate', you could signal 'I am in a monogamous relationship and my boyfriend is higher status than you'. It's a bit harder, and I'm still working on it, but certainly possible.

It's more frustrating for the guys though.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 September 2012 05:38:15PM 3 points [-]

'I am in a monogamous relationship and my boyfriend is higher status than you'.

I'm curious what would signal this. If I can't interpret these kind of signals then I'm in trouble.

Comment author: Sarokrae 12 September 2012 11:50:23PM *  4 points [-]

Erm, there are obvious ways of doing it. I tend to just drop my boyfriend into conversation as often as it is appropriate, and make sure I mention him in contexts such as "oh he's really good at such-and-such".

Comment author: chaosmosis 13 September 2012 12:42:34AM 1 point [-]

Okay, that seems obvious now that you've mentioned it. I started to try to think of all these abstract things, and I could only think of maybe showing off jewelry that was supposed to imply you're in a relationship. I was thinking about more subtle things, and I couldn't really think of anything, so I was wondering if maybe I was just missing something.

Comment author: coffeespoons 11 September 2012 03:49:31PM *  3 points [-]

I tend to prefer to wear flattering clothes, whether looking for a partner or not, because they make me feel more comfortable/confident. It's possible to wear clothes that are flattering, but not sexy, I think. Maybe I need to work on this more.

Comment author: shminux 11 September 2012 03:59:27PM *  1 point [-]

It's possible to wear clothes that are flattering, but not sexy, I think.

For a female? No, it really is not. But just in case I misunderstand what you mean, care to tell the difference between flattering and sexy? Or link to a couple of pictures of each type and we can let the males here provide feedback on whether what you consider simply flattering is also sexy.

Comment author: Manfred 17 September 2012 01:45:16PM *  4 points [-]

One classic example of flattering but not sexy is coloration that suits you - if you have fair skin, blue-green eyes and salt and pepper hair, a light grey and sage green jacket is going to be flattering, but can range freely from not sexy to sexy.

Comment author: Douglas_Reay 09 September 2012 09:38:29AM 13 points [-]

How do you think LessWrong does at productive discussion of gender issues (when discussed) compared to other communities you have experience of that have a similar gender ratio (eg the Science Fiction community)? Do you think the LessWrong community would benefit most from a higher, lower, or about the current frequency of such discussions?

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 04:22:45PM *  9 points [-]

How do you think LessWrong does at productive discussion of gender issues (when discussed) compared to other communities you have experience of that have a similar gender ratio (eg the Science Fiction community)?

I think LW mistakes "not a screaming flamewar all or most of the time" for "productive conversation." It's certainly true that LW is more civil about things. But that civility seems overrated, too -- someone with little or no stake in an issue can often discuss it with far less emotion than someone with a lot of stake in it, precisely because of that differential. That doesn't mean the former party is more likely to be objective or make the right decision; the norm just acts as a filter for certain kinds of personality, or for the ability to make your feelings and preferences sound smart. If you look at similar discussions that have been going on recently in similar spaces (LW is not alone here; the SF and atheist subcultures have been in the middle of a similar round of topical debate), things are noisier, and often a great deal more vitriolic -- but I'm not sure what's been gained here, that isn't being gained in those places. I don't think LW as a community has generated any special insights here.

Comment author: Larks 11 September 2012 06:44:36PM 5 points [-]

someone with little or no stake in an issue can often discuss it with far less emotion than someone with a lot of stake in it, precisely because of that differential. That doesn't mean the former party is more likely to be objective or make the right decision

Really? It seems that keeping yourself in system 2 mode would lead to better reasoning on such matters. Certainly I don't feel particularly rational when frothing at the screen and TYPING IN CAPS LOCK.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 06:56:15PM *  5 points [-]

Yeah, no. I've watched perfectly calm and reasonable-sounding people sincerely debate whether some group of other people (queer folks and disabled folks come to mind) have a right to exist that should not be overridden in favor of euthanasia to satisfy their own utility functions. I've watched this happen in the halls of supposedly respectable institutions while members of the group under discussion protested outside.

The people going "Hey, this is really fucked up that our right to exist can just be casually debated with or without us in a mainstream, powerful institution, and our not raising a fuss about that is apparently more important to people than the actual suggestion" weren't polite or unemotional, but they did seem to understand the situation for what it was a whole lot better than the folks inside. I'm not sure I want to be around people who can't perform that kind of sanity check on occasion.

Comment author: Yvain 11 September 2012 07:40:25PM *  3 points [-]

What's the alternative to rationally debating ideas that violate our moral sensibilities, assuming some people hold them?

Is it to declare with 100% certainty that any idea that violates our moral sensibilities is false? Is it to say that maybe there's a small chance that ideas violating our moral sensibilities are true, but even so we must never discuss them so if they're true we're out of luck and will never reach that true belief? Is it to say we may discuss them, but not rationally - that is, we must let the screaming protesters into the debate so that they can throw eggs and mud onto the debaters because that will improve the quality of discourse?

Also, I bet (and correct me if I'm wrong) that whatever debate you've watched was not about "Let's round up the [Other Folk] and execute them." My guess is it was either about allowing them voluntary euthanasia, allowing abortion or infanticide on the part of their parents, or ceasing to specifically allocate scarce health resources to them.

That means that what we're really talking about is "Any idea that can be massaged into sounding like an idea that violates our moral sensibilities is 100% certainly wrong, or should never be discussed, or needs more egg-throwing."

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 08:00:21PM *  6 points [-]

What's the alternative to rationally debating ideas that violate our moral sensibilities, assuming some people hold them?

When inviting a guest speaker for an honorarium to hold forth in front of an audience on a subject that affects few or none of them directly, and just giving them that platform without any semblance of discourse apart from taking questions at the end...yeah, I'm gonna say "Rationally debating ideas that violate our moral sensibilities" is not what was going on. Doubly so since in many cases those ideas actually affirm the moral sensibilities of some fair portion of the population.

Also, I bet (and correct me if I'm wrong) that whatever debate you've watched was not about "Let's round up the [Other Folk] and execute them." My guess is it was either about allowing them voluntary euthanasia, allowing abortion or infanticide on the part of their parents, or ceasing to specifically allocate scarce health resources to them.

Yeah, you're wrong -- we're talking about folks who honestly and straightforwardly suggested it was an ethical good to terminate the lives of these people which they felt either had no value (usually through "gentle" methods of euthanasia, and I do not mean voluntarily applied), or had such small value in comparison to their suffering that it was worth it. This is not hyperbole -- though I find it interesting you found the idea so difficult to believe straight up that your interpretation must be that I'm just flipping my lid over a loose patternmatch and couldn't have possibly understood that right. It suggests you think it doesn't happen often enough for rational people to be concerned about.

That means that what we're really talking about is "Any idea that can be massaged into sounding like an idea that violates our moral sensibilities is 100% certainly wrong, or should never be discussed, or needs more egg-throwing."

No, you're not listening to what I'm actually saying, you're just assuming from the get-go that I'm a screaming mindless chimp flinging feces because The Bad Thing Is Bad.

Comment author: Yvain 11 September 2012 08:22:18PM *  11 points [-]

You're right, I apologize.

(although to be fair, you did say you watched "calm and reasonable people sincerely debate this" and that people were objecting to it being "casually debated", so I don't think it was my fault for assuming it was a debate rather than one person going on about it unopposed.)

Now I'm very curious what exactly was going on, although I understand if you don't want to look like you're pointing fingers at specific people.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 09:11:19PM 6 points [-]

Upvoted for owning up to it.

(although to be fair, you did say you watched "calm and reasonable people sincerely debate this" and that people were objecting to it being "casually debated", so I don't think it was my fault for assuming it was a debate rather than one person going on about it unopposed.)

Yah, I'm not being very clear with that, though it's at least partly because I'm just generally underslept and sick, and have been for a couple of months now, so it's hard to "say what I mean" rather than "verbalize something that's more on-target for what I mean, than not." (Gotta love autie language brain...)

Some of what I'm referring to is just conferences, symposia, guest speaker talks or, yes, actual debates, usually hosted at an academic institution that I or someone I knew was attending. I was particularly uninclined to take anybody's word for much of anything at the time, and insisted on looking into it a bit myself before really trying to interpret what they were upset about .

Some of it is just random discussions with other people over the years, both on and off of LW.

Comment author: MixedNuts 12 September 2012 02:22:07PM 5 points [-]

Wait. You've heard people proposing to gently euthanize queers? Can you say in what country and decade, if you don't want to give too much information? I can't see the mercy-killing crowd going against queers, nor the gay-murdering crowd preferring gentle methods to hanging.

I'm also surprised people are still openly supporting involuntary euthanasia after WW2. Forced sterilization isn't even done on whole groups anymore since the seventies.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 11:46:38PM 1 point [-]

Are you familiar with Not Dead Yet?

Comment author: Larks 11 September 2012 07:33:32PM 1 point [-]

Sure, system 2 can make mistakes. Though it is not uncontroversial to classify all the instances you point to as mistakes - I'm thinking pro-abortion people, and Peter Singer.

But in any case, the question is whether it is in general more prone to them than system 1, a questions which requires data rather than anecdotes. However, I'm willing to bet the angels of our better nature show through more when we're thinking than when we're not.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 September 2012 06:01:35PM 1 point [-]

I think that change is a long process. It's probably not yet possible to see whether the more overt conflict in other venues pays off better than the more polite style at LW, or vice versa.

Also, rationality might be a confounding factor. It's possible-- not guaranteed-- that the group norm of paying attention and updating will have good results, even if it's much slower for highly emotionally fraught issues than for procrastination.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 06:30:20PM *  5 points [-]

I think that change is a long process. It's probably not yet possible to see whether the more overt conflict in other venues pays off better than the more polite style at LW, or vice versa.

It's certainly perilous to make too much of an analogy, but when I look at the broader history of social justice movements (at least in the US), it's not obvious to me at all that keeping to a majority idea of polite gets much done. It's fashionable for white people who didn't live through, say, the black Civil Rights movement to talk about MLK vs Malcolm X, as polite vs confrontational (hell, that conception of them has become a mass media archetype -- see Professor X vs Magneto in the X-Men franchise, or virtually anything else that deals in discrimination against fantastics), forgetting how much confrontation King and his followers actually engaged in.

Comment author: Larks 11 September 2012 06:50:49PM 8 points [-]

it's not obvious to me at all that keeping to a majority idea of polite gets much done.

The idea of observing norms of behaviour isn't to "get things done", it's to reduce the damage when what you want is the wrong thing. I'd much prefer both my communists and my liberals be peaceful than both be violent. Yes, maybe it might be better if the good guys were confrontational and the bad guys meek; but for the good of the tribe, we should avoid killing for the sake of the tribe. You cannot run an algorithm "violate social norms when I'm right" - you can only run "violate social norms when I think I'm right".

Personal advances should constrained by social mores and individual rights so as to reduce damage when the subject doesn't appreciate them. Even if you're sure you're right you should still ask for premission; even if it were the case that not obeying social rules (e.g. being creepy) got more done.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 06:57:52PM 4 points [-]

Yeah, see, part of the problem here is that you appear to consider making noise a really good indicator of being willing to kill for the sake of the tribe.

Comment author: Larks 11 September 2012 07:41:39PM 3 points [-]

No (though it obveously constitutes at least weak bayesian evidence), that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the reason you should obey social norms in controversial situations applies in both cases.

Equally, "making noise" is to minimise that which I am objecting too. Talking politely, quietly, slowly, with a smile makes noise, but is normally fine. I do object to Malcolm X, though.

Comment author: Benja 12 September 2012 10:13:57AM 6 points [-]

Equally, "making noise" is to minimise that which I am objecting too. Talking politely, quietly, slowly, with a smile makes noise, but is normally fine. I do object to Malcolm X, though.

Yeah, see, the discussion you were replying to was about whether it would be useful to have confrontational or non-calm comments in discussions, one reason being that listening only to calm people might mean hearing only one side of the story, because it's easier to be calm if you have little to lose (because you're on the more powerful side), and another reason being that the truth may be confrontational, so hearing only non-confrontational comments may lead you to miss it.

In the comment you were originally replying to, Jandila was arguing that MLK tends to be cast as non-confrontational, vs. Malcolm X as confrontational, in young white people's discourse today, but that in fact MLK and his followers were quite confrontational. Thus, looking at history, non-calm confrontational speech seems like a reasonable tool if you want things to change something for the better, even if the people who would be the target of that confrontational speech misremember the actually-society-changing civil rights movement as being less confrontational than it was.

Both of your comments seem to consider only the extremes of "talk politely with a smile" and something in the space between black nationalism and actually killing people who disagree with you (I'm not sure what exactly you're objecting to in saying you "object to Malcolm X"). This seems unhelpful in a discussion about whether or not it would be useful to also have people participate in discussions who talk confrontationally with angry raised voices.

Comment author: Larks 14 September 2012 11:13:34PM *  2 points [-]

Both of your comments seem to consider only the extremes of "talk politely with a smile" and something in the space between black nationalism and actually killing people who disagree with you

No, I was just pointing out that the same argument applies to both violence and impoliteness. Making an analogy between X and Y does not mean that one thinks that X and Y are the same in other respects.

(also how can the truth be confrontational? maybe we're using the word 'confrontational' in different senses (or, god forbid, using the word 'truth' in different senses) but it seems like only agents or utterances can be confrontational.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2012 03:45:10PM *  6 points [-]

There's confrontation, and then there's confrontation. I see a difference between "We will make it emotionally and/or financially expensive for you to not change" and describing people as white devils. One sort of confrontation is based on the premise that people can change, and the other is based on the premise that they won't and/or can't.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2012 05:39:17PM *  1 point [-]

The problem I'm seeing, broadly, is that white people can't necessarily always tell the difference between the two. Even when it's couched in positively obsequious language there's a decent chance of that. I'm not exaggerating here; some white people now think it's racist to even mention racism. Most white people (certainly a lot of them here in this site) are highly resistant to the idea that racism even exists in this day and age, or that it's anything other than a strictly defined "paying attention to racial differences."

You can't meet everyone halfway here, because they're either unable or unwilling to reciprocate. It's not about reaching out to people and persuading and convincing them, at that point -- it's about not letting the fact that you can't stop you from addressing your actual situation.

Comment author: thomblake 12 September 2012 08:46:46PM 1 point [-]

some white people now think it's racist to even mention racism

Some of us even object to "white people"!

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2012 08:17:35PM 3 points [-]

I don't think people can reliably tell the difference between the two, probably especially when they feel they have higher status than the person being addressed. At the moment, we're getting a variant of the problem in regards to gender.

Who decides the emotional significance of a statement? What tool can you use? Emotions are a rubber ruler, but what else could be available?

This being said, I don't think the problem is completely unsolvable. Social justice as currently practiced is probably not going to be the last experiment in working on it.

What do you mean by "actual situation"?

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2012 10:57:55PM 1 point [-]

I don't think people can reliably tell the difference between the two, probably especially when they feel they have higher status than the person being addressed. At the moment, we're getting a variant of the problem in regards to gender.

I'm looking at what you said here, and the paragraph I wrote whose format it echoes, and I can't help but think we're talking about two very different things.

Who decides the emotional significance of a statement?

The person whose emotions were touched off by it. Easy, right?

The question I'd be tempted to derive from your connotation here is more like: "Who gets to decide which interpretations of those reports-of-emotional-significance are being proposed as the priority for the purposes of conflict resolution and communication?"

(My answer to that is "the question is slightly broken", but I'm about to head out so can't give you the preferred reframing right this moment).

Social justice as currently practiced is probably not going to be the last experiment in working on it.

Oh, definitely not. It has plenty of its discontents, even within the movement, who aren't satisfied with the tools and methodologies available, its failure modes, and so on. That's being actively discussed in many spaces, I've observed.

Comment author: JulianMorrison 17 September 2012 12:48:55PM 1 point [-]

Depends who you're speaking to, and why. To a significant extent, the "confrontational" approach wasn't about asking for change, it was about "consciousness raising" - debiasing the self concepts of black people, fixing learned helplessness, constructing the conceptual framework to experience white supremacy as racism rather than having internalized it as legitimate.

And, to my mind, the assumption white people "won't and/or can't" change was well calibrated. Political anti-racism succeeded somewhat in shoving the Overton window off avowed racism and completely off avowed segregationism. Every variety of disavowed racism remains politically viable (examples: border fences, "illegals", voter suppression laws) or even politically unassailable (examples: the drug war and its disproportionate criminalization of black people, police casual violence against black people, felon disenfranchisement coupled with the above, lack of reparations). "Color blindness" has been shown to be a cause of / form of racism, but it remains the default "liberal" position in white dominated culture.

Comment author: MugaSofer 27 November 2012 03:48:49AM 1 point [-]

I would't really call "police casual violence against black people" "politically unassailable".

</nitpick>

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 September 2012 02:06:12PM 3 points [-]

The war on drugs is a tricky one-- I'm against it myself, but I've seen black people be in favor of it, and in favor of closed borders. too.

Neither the war on drugs nor severe border restrictions (which I'm also against) are overtly racist the way Jim Crow was, and that makes them harder to fight. It's much easier to frame the war on drugs and border restrictions as the sorts of thing a normal government ought to do-- some combination of help and punishment and keeping people who don't use drugs safe for the war on drugs, and safety and control for border restrictions.

Something got accomplished to lower the racism level in the US, even though much less was accomplished than either of us want. I'm inclined to think that the real problem is that we have no idea how to reliably get people to be less prejudiced, and institutional problems will get re-established as long as a lot of people want them to persist.

This isn't a counsel of despair-- it's a recommendation to keep trying to figure out what might work.

Comment author: novalis 10 September 2012 07:51:03AM 4 points [-]

What factors would tend to give you a bad impression of a community, either online or in person? (That's sort of two questions, but they're related)

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 06:50:55AM 0 points [-]

I've discovered that there are a few things that can scare me away from an interesting place:

  • Dysfunctional behavior. A lot of people who have sharp minds don't always apply that in the emotional realm and their behavior shows it. There's a difference between harmless instances of social skill failures and a complete failure to develop as a human being. I don't think "irrationality" covers it. I'm speaking more of a lack of moral maturity. The creepers who think the world revolves around them and the various kinds of dysfunctional behaviors that result in people hurting each other emotionally. I was recently disappointed with the amount of dysfunctional behavior I discovered in a group that I liked and have not been back for some time.

  • Elitist behavior, or seeing a bunch of people commit social suicide by smearing the group as "elitist" in public. I considered quitting LessWrong because of that. I decided to stay a bit longer because there's a possibility that the pro "elitism" people will see the error of this and there are enough good things about the group that it seems worthwhile to see whether they reconsider.

Comment author: Caspian 09 September 2012 10:28:14AM 12 points [-]

Can you describe some occasions when a woman was creepy towards you at a social event, lesswrong-related or otherwise?

Comment author: [deleted] 09 September 2012 08:38:29PM *  6 points [-]

The following is my personal experience only, and does not negate the feelings and opinions of those with different experiences.

I have almost never felt creeped out by a female. Even if they are overly huggy or complimenty, it tends to lack the predatory or aggressive/disrespective vibe that makes me feel creeped. Or rather, it doesn't cause in me a reaction of feeling predated. At worst, I feel mildly uncertain.

I can only think of one time when I ever felt creeped out by a woman. It was a couple years ago, so my recollection is not the best, but to the best I recall: We had only been talking for about a minute or two, when out of nowhere she says something along the lines of "So, are you interested in women?" It was ugh-y.

As a straight-leaning female myself, who's good at social cues, I do get to be more huggy and complimenty with people, without having a significant chance that I am going to creep anyone out.

I do think I might have once mildly creeped a fellow LWer though. We had recently met for rationality camp, and she made a comment that I had read as being insecure about her appearance. My reply was along the lines of "Seriously, when I first saw you I thought 'Oh wow, she is so pretty!'" and then complimented her. Later I found out that I might have misread her first comment (not certain if I actually did or not, but realized later that there was a possible alternate interpretation to what she said), which would have made me all of a sudden complimenting her looks to be a weird and creepy thing. But I'm pretty sure that IF I did misread the comment, that she realized the miscommunication, and was just too polite to say. (So in other words, her response was "Oh, she thought I meant X and is trying to make me feel better. Well I don't want to hurt her feelings by saying she misunderstood" which is significantly better than "Oh my god, why is this random person all of a sudden complimenting my looks?!?")

ETA- At the time of this incident, I actually was dating a female, which is a factor that could push the interaction from "awkward" to "creepy".

That's the only time I can recall making a "creepy" faux pas, and realizing it.

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 07:00:46AM *  5 points [-]

I remember being hit on by girls (we were teenagers at the time) who didn't understand boundaries - they would try to make me try women, or try to extract kisses from me. Being persistent about what they want while ignoring the fact that what I wanted was in conflict with their desires is what was creepy.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2012 03:51:30PM *  7 points [-]

At a science fiction convention, there was a question about enough car space to get a party to a restaurant, and a woman kept saying that I could sit on her lap.

At a later convention, she upgraded a hug (I can't remember how consensual the hug was) to a kiss, and I threw her out of my life.

Marginally creepy but much less serious for me-- an older woman who would keep touching my hair (more dramatically curly at the time). The experience was more weird/dissociated for me than upsetting, so I didn't do anything about it. I actually didn't even think of it as possibly part of a larger social pattern until I read many accounts by black people of white people insisting on touching their hair.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 September 2012 06:06:24PM 1 point [-]

many accounts by black people of white people insisting on touching their hair.

I'm white and this seems bizarre to me. Like, extremely weird. I'm sort of creeped out just knowing about it.

Comment author: Alicorn 12 September 2012 06:14:32PM 2 points [-]

Textures are fascinating. I like touching people's hair in general; it's neat as long as it isn't full of goop. (I ask first.) So far this hasn't happened to come up with any black people except one I was dating whose hair I could consequently touch very incidentally, but yeah, this is supposedly a thing and it would make me nervous about asking a black friend if I could touch their hair.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2012 07:47:46PM 1 point [-]

Try to Feel It My Way, a book about touch-dominant people-- those who have touching as a major way of relating to the world.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2012 07:44:56PM *  3 points [-]

Me, too. When I grasped that hair touching was a thing, I actually wondered if my family had assimilated into mainstream American culture as much as I'd thought. (Eastern European Jewish, and my great grandparents came here in the early 1900s.)

However, I think it's more reasonable to conclude that this is something that only a tiny minority of white people do, but there's enough of them that black people are reasonably likely to have had the experience or to know someone who has.

I've also heard that demands to touch hair or touching with no preliminaries are somewhat likely to happen to white redheads.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 September 2012 06:51:56PM *  1 point [-]

To clarify my reaction: I don't find anything wrong with it. It just seems really arbitrary, and slightly like a violation of personal space (even if you ask) although that one doesn't really bother me. I find it unusual and surprising, more than anything else. My reaction was along the lines of "Wait, what? Why would you want to touch my hair?".

Comment author: Alicorn 12 September 2012 07:01:10PM *  3 points [-]

A lot of people like being petted. Enough people and enough liking that I'm confused that it doesn't seem to be a normal thing, like hugs.

Edit: Maybe because it's kind of hard to pet someone who is petting you? Hugs are typically reciprocal.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 September 2012 07:13:14PM 2 points [-]

Sure. I've just only seen or heard of it done with intimate couples. I've never seen it done with strangers. It seems like a couple steps above hugs on a scale of casual intimacy, to me, if I can just invent a scale out of thin air and proceed to give no reference points to guide how you'd evaluate that sort of thing.

Comment author: thomblake 12 September 2012 06:19:13PM 5 points [-]

I've noticed some clusters of people thinking that touching other people's hair is okay (they usually ask strangers first), but I haven't been able to pick up on what else those clusters have in common.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 September 2012 07:02:54PM 4 points [-]

Now that I think about it, a couple days ago I saw a group of white girls practically interrogating these two black girls about what they did with their hair. My own reaction was more along the lines of "oh, curly dreadlock braid thingys" and then I moved on, so I couldn't figure out why they were so (rudely) curious (they were so aggressive with their questions that my first thought was actually that the white girls were trying to bully them, but then that didn't make sense for other reasons). I concluded that it was more about those girls being extremely curious about a different type of hairstyle, which it technically was, but I meant that in a sense more about function and structure than about race and the hair itself.

I feel weird when I think about this. I think it's because I'm trying to use my brain to model an interest or value that I've never had or noticed before and that I have a difficult time empathizing with a fascination for something unusual like this. It feels like something warm and fuzzy is scratching the top of my head. Confusing..........

Comment author: lucidian 11 September 2012 11:37:20AM 6 points [-]

In discussions such as these, how do you prefer that the community refers to its female members? Do you like when female community members are called "women"? "girls"? "females"? Do you actively dislike any of these options? What is your opinion on gender-neutral pronouns, and what do you use for the third-person-singular-neuter? I'm also interested in any other observations you've had on the linguistics of gender.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 September 2012 01:14:47PM *  0 points [-]

On a related note, I generally either use the neutral form of the word, or put a note about how even though I used the masculine form I don't like patriarchy. It's just sometimes a hassle to neuter everything, and I like going with the tradition of using the masculine form because I've already internalized it. But I don't want it to feel like I'm overlooking women's concerns.

Anyone here dislike that?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 September 2012 04:36:57PM 3 points [-]

I've found that it's possible to avoid gendered pronouns with a little work. You may find that practice helps.

If they can't be avoided there's always "he or she", possibly alternated with "she or he".

For what it's worth, I don't like male as the default human. It's very far from the worst thing ever, but I recommend avoiding it.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 September 2012 05:35:33PM -1 points [-]

So, specifically, if I used the masculine form but then also put down a note about how I don't like patriarchy, would you would still feel bad or think I'm supporting bad assumptions? The note thing is what I generally do in the status quo, and what requires the least effort on my part.

I can understand if you would still feel bad, I just wanted to make sure you saw the note caveat I mentioned because you didn't mention anything about it in your comment.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 September 2012 02:30:08AM 1 point [-]

I actually either missed the note caveat, or else didn't mention it because I don't think that sort of note helps.

The thing is, I still have a mental habit of seeing male as default human-- I'm not just hoping to get rid of that in my own mind, I'd really prefer it if the meme of male as default human isn't spread.

Comment author: Alicorn 11 September 2012 05:16:44PM 6 points [-]

I have a purely idiosyncratic, aesthetic distaste for the words "women" and "men", so I use "girls" and "guys", occasionally "boys", sometimes "males" and "females", if I'm being a little silly "dude" and "lady". I do sometimes use "women" and "men" when talking in a more formal register.

I like Spivak pronouns when talking about specific gender-unknown individuals where "they" is ambiguous or strange-sounding.

I hate being mispronouned. (I wouldn't mind if someone Spivaked me, but I'd then inform them of my gender.) I hate it even more when people think I'm being ridiculous for hating it.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 07:05:03PM 4 points [-]

I tend to prefer women. "Girls" often feels a bit demeaning, especially when contrasted with "men" or "guys".

"Females" sounds like somebody's trying to lend their remark a little too much apparently-biological weight.

I like gender-neutral pronouns when they're handy, for people who want them, or for the generic case. I used to be a bit mixed on which one sounded good for just general conversation, but after reading the Eclipse Phase RPG I pretty much stopped having any sympathy for the idea that "singular they" is awkward. It flows very well for me and sounds quite natural, and it's a common term in English so there's no trouble with inflecting it.

what do you use for the third-person-singular-neuter?

They, them, their.

Comment author: Desrtopa 12 September 2012 03:23:49AM 5 points [-]

I tend to prefer women. "Girls" often feels a bit demeaning, especially when contrasted with "men" or "guys".

It's problematic that there isn't really an age-indeterminate female pronoun to act as a counterpart to "guys," since a not-insignificant fraction of our members are still in their teens.

Comment author: thomblake 12 September 2012 06:30:37PM *  3 points [-]

What about 'gals'? While it's technically just a form of "girls", it's used contextually similarly to "guys".

Comment author: mrglwrf 14 September 2012 02:59:50PM 1 point [-]

Only when it's used at all, which is far less often than 'guys'. Yes, it's true that it's a distaff counterpart to 'guys', but so is 'dolls', and would you seriously propose unironic usage of 'dolls'?

Comment author: Desrtopa 12 September 2012 07:33:43PM 3 points [-]

I suppose that is indeed a word that exists. Having grown up in the Northeastern U.S., it's not really part of my active vocabulary.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 05:38:38PM 4 points [-]

"Women" and "females" are both fine for me. The worst thing is when men are referred to as "men", and women are referred to as "girls" in the same discussion. No.

"Girls" is only ok when referring to children, or in very casual use to refer to a group of female friends. i.e. "Hey, going out with the girls tonight?", or if the male pronoun in that situation would be "boys" or "guys".

If a discussion is going on about gender, as long as no one uses "girls", I don't like when someone brings up "Hey, you should use the term "women" instead of "females"" (or vice versa). It reads as just another way to get the discussion off-track from the important issues.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 September 2012 12:24:06PM 4 points [-]

In general, I prefer "women". If it's a far view discussion, then "females" is ok with me as long as it's paralleled by "males". I don't like "girls" being used to refer to adult women.

I use the singular "they". I don't mind invented pronouns. I get annoyed at male pronouns used to refer to people in general and still get startled at female pronouns used to refer to people in general.

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 06:54:49AM *  1 point [-]

When guys use the word "girls", it makes me wonder if they're teenagers who still spend most of their time with girls. "Females" reminds me of scientific studies... I use it myself if "women" doesn't fit, but due to the association with test subjects, it sounds a bit dehumanizing at times. I like "women" best.

I don't like that we have to use gender pronouns so often, and I wish we had something that never sounded awkward and fit every circumstance. When being gender neutral, I use they/them/their, and may jam them in even if they sound a little off.

Comment author: Kawoomba 09 September 2012 10:20:58AM 6 points [-]

Do you find the LW males - those for whom you feel you have a reasonably good model - on average to be more openly status-oriented, competitive and aggressive concerning their rationality expertise, compared to your female LW acquaintances?

Comment author: Caspian 09 September 2012 10:31:51AM 8 points [-]

Can you describe some occasions you met a new female friend (who you didn't previously know) at a social event, lesswrong-related or otherwise, and how it wasn't creepy, and what was fun/interesting/good about it.

Comment author: Douglas_Reay 09 September 2012 10:07:26AM 11 points [-]

What topics (if any) have you considered posting about (or replying to), but then decided not to because of fear of gender-specific negative response or attention? If there any specific question you'd be interested in participating in a future discussion upon, on the same anonymous lines as this one?

Comment author: Alicorn 09 September 2012 05:53:35PM 4 points [-]

I post less to PUA/genderthings type threads than my naive inclination would be. Part of this is the (good thing) that there are some people around who sometimes find these threads before I do who I trust to say sane things, many of whom are better at keeping their cool than I am. Part of this is the (bad thing) that I expect to be attacked when I do post, via generalization or just insensitive badgering (and also by voting).

While in such threads, I make a general policy of withholding some relevant personal information, even when I think it could make me more convincing, because I don't want to paint more of a target on myself, or risk the greater emotional fallout of even that not being persuasive.

Comment author: lucidian 10 September 2012 03:34:24AM 3 points [-]

I don't think I've ever feared a gender-specific negative response when posting on LessWrong, though I also deliberately use a gender-neutral username.

Comment author: Epiphany 14 September 2012 07:21:18AM 2 points [-]

None. I have far too much self-confidence to be scared off for that reason. I can deal with the frequent disagreements but it took me a looooong time to become comfortable with that. I was people-pleasing and at first I couldn't tolerate the experience of causing or persisting with disagreements because I didn't like making others uncomfortable. I had to train myself to deal with that but I'm good at it now. I have to wonder how many other women would find it hard to put themselves out there and take all the resulting criticism. If women often have a preference for supportive environments, that may be part of the reason for the gender ratio being skewed.

Comment author: Caspian 09 September 2012 10:27:08AM 12 points [-]

Can you describe some occasions when a man was creepy towards you at a social event, lesswrong-related or otherwise?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 14 September 2012 07:06:50AM *  7 points [-]

One general point: while "mansplaining" is not part of my vocabulary, I've looked into whether the word might be about something real, and I've noticed that on NPR call-in shows, men are more likely to take up the very limited amount of time by explaining things that people already know.

This leads into a specific issue: I've had a few instances of men explaining feminism to me and my not liking the experience at all, and I think I've figured out the issue. It's not that they're men, it's that they show no signs of hearing what I say on the topic, and I've seen this from men who are reasonably capable of listening most of the time.

An example of creepy even though it wasn't a sexual approach: a man telling me about how it's a fundamental male thing to protect women from violence. I had two issues-- men actually aren't very good at it (consider that wars frequently happen in places where women are living), and he was twice my size, talking about violence, and completely spaced out. I wasn't afraid on the "get out now" level, but I was spooked.

Comment author: Benquo 17 September 2012 04:17:45PM *  0 points [-]

Interesting. I've had similar conversations with men - where they are intent on explaining stuff instead of listening too - but not very often with women.

When you say that "it's not that they're men", do you mean that it's as often women as men, or just that being a man is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for this behavior? I'm assuming the second, please correct me if that's wrong.

A few hypotheses:

1) Men like to be dominant, and that means being the explainer, not the explainee, no matter whether they know what they're talking about.

2) Men like talking more in general, so they are more likely to explain things that are obvious or wrong.

3) Men are worse at listening.

4) Men and women both do this, but men are more obvious about it.

#1 is almost certainly true. Men and women IME also seem to have different average preferences about the appropriateness of interrupting, talking over someone, saying flat-out "you're wrong."

I don't think #2 is likely, but I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again (though hopefully less wrong).

I don't have an opinion on #3. Listening (and being curious about what other people think) in real time is definitely a learned skill for me.

I've definitely had a bunch of conversations where people said things that sounded like listening, without giving any sign of comprehension. I'm not sure if men or women do this more often, but it is weak evidence for #4.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 18 September 2012 12:47:07AM 0 points [-]

I meant that being a man is neither necessary or sufficient for the behavior., and also even though I don't think I've run into that behavior from a woman in person, I'd still find it almost as annoying.

I haven't been checking on the gender/topic combinations which make it hard for me to get into a conversation so I don't even have the beginning of a theory.

My tentative theory is that feminism is makes some men more anxious, so that if they're talking rather than intimidated into silence, they'll be more compulsive. Along the same lines, they may be hoping they've finally gotten it right, and don't want to put even more work into it.

However, I don't have a lot of samples, and I'm guessing.

Comment author: Alicorn 09 September 2012 05:48:17PM *  20 points [-]

At a subculturey party, I made friends with a girl, and when I had to leave I went to say goodbye to her and ask her for a hug. She was talking to someone else who I didn't know at all, and after I hugged her, he went for a hug too. He was too close for me to think of a way to evade him beyond the overtly dramatic "ducking and dodging", so, what the heck, it was just a hug. But then instead of just hugging me he did a weird thing where he alternated the relative position of our heads a couple times. Then he kissed me on the cheek.

I still didn't know this guy at all, so, maybe that was a weird cultural thing or something, but I said "I was not comfortable with that, you shouldn't do that". Still could have been an innocent misreading, if he'd let me go and said "sorry" that would have been the end of it, but instead he said, "Well, I'll probably never have the chance to do it again, so that works out" - which made it Decidedly Sketchy and not-OK; kissing people who don't want to be kissed is not ever a case of things working out, trying to laugh off someone's discomfort is not cool, and the fact that he said this anyway cast all of the things he'd already done that were sketchy in a retroactively worse light.

(This is by far the sketchiest thing that has ever happened to me at a subculturey meatspace event, to be fair. Next closest thing was when I had to verbally signal the end of a hug and the guy let go instantly and apologized, and that's the only other thing I can think of.)

Comment author: juliawise 10 September 2012 01:48:15PM 0 points [-]

The face-side-switching kiss sounds like how women in parts of Europe often greet each other, but for a strange man to do it is definitely weird (especially given his vile response afterwards).

Comment author: Emile 10 September 2012 03:18:39PM *  12 points [-]

Not that weird; Frenchmen will usually greet women by kissing them on both cheeks, though we usually know that Americans are prudes and don't like that (also, we do it when saying hello, not goodbye).

(I agree that the ensuing behavior definitly puts this in "sketchy" territory)

Comment author: MatthewBaker 11 September 2012 09:17:01AM 0 points [-]

This made me 100x happier about our first interaction at the Irvine meetup with Yvain and co... Fanfiction chatting cooler than all other types of chattery :)

Comment author: [deleted] 10 September 2012 08:25:42PM *  16 points [-]

I have never felt creeped at a LessWrong event. There are other problems arising from social awkwardness, though. Here's an example:

A fellow LWer and I were discussing a mutual LW passing acquaintance. I mentioned that I had read him as cold and aloof. He didn't really respond any time I had tried to engage with him. My friend responded that his read had been that he was a warm, but shy person. Further discussion led us to the realization that because this person was attractive, well-dressed, carried himself well, and elsewise high-status, I was interpreting certain responses (monosyllabic answers, not really looking at me, or engaging with me, etc) differently.

If I was trying to engage with a person who presented as being more socially awkward, and they gave the exact same responses then I would have read that as being signs that they were shy and/or I was intimidating them. I would have adjusted, raised my patience level, and try to draw them into a one-on-one conversation. However, because this particular person managed to give off a superficial appearance of being socially skilled, I read the same responses as being aloof, cold, and dismissive. (which is what they would be, coming from a socially skilled person)


A sub-culture I have occasionally felt creeped out in, is swing dancing. I love swing and blues dancing, and will happily dance in a sensual manner, even with people I've never met before, am not at all attracted to, etc, as long as a) they are skilled dancers, and b) they aren't giving off "creepy" vibes. These are correlated, as most leads who have stuck around long enough to be skilled, have also figured out how to be not creepy.

A counter-example of a skilled dancer being creepy: An older male, who I used to enjoy dancing with, once came to a dance a little drunk, and was much more forceful during the dance with pulling me close (it's hard to explain the difference between good-lead-pulling-close, and creepy-forceful-lead-pulling close. ETA- A good explanation is that it is a "demand" rather than a "request"), and such. Now I don't even much like dancing him when he's sober any more.

Another problem is creepy new leads. They see the sensual dancing, and so think they can lead it. This is not okay. Intro classes are offered before every event, and they teach how to do the basic dances. Open position. Closed position. NOT full contact. A non-experienced, new dancer trying to pull me close, etc is NOT GOOD. Most new leads know better, and if anything are a little too shy (tend towards open position only, when closed position is perfectly acceptable).

My ad hoc explanation for this, is that you have to "earn" the more sensual dance moves by putting in your time enough to show that it is about the DANCE, and is NOT about skeeving on me. A guy who shows up to his first or second swing event, and tries to pull me close is communicating that he is more interested in skeeving on girls, than on actually learning to dance.

As an aside, I actually did get the same sort of tensed-up-omg-omg reaction that usually accompanies "creep" behavior, my very first time swing dancing. But I recognized it as a reaction to the fact that random guys where touching me, and in my personal space, in a way I wasn't used to. I realized that it was not AT ALL the fault of the really nice leads who were dancing with the new girl, and completely my own reaction to a physical situation that in my usual circumstances would be weird. I'm sure it didn't help that my first time at a swing event was because I just happened to be where at the location a late-night (post swing dance event that tends towards the more sensual dancing) was, when they showed up.

Comment author: khafra 12 September 2012 01:32:35PM 6 points [-]

This confirms every fear about the convoluted and thin line between being stiffly and unnaturally standoffish and creepy that's ever kept me from going to a dance class. I'm quite positive I would spend the first few classes being told to just loosen up a little, to not be afraid of my dance partner, finally try really hard to do that--and forever earn a reputation as a creep.

Please don't read this as a rebuke or admonishment; I'm actually glad to know that my fears were well-founded; and learning to dance isn't really that important to me.

Comment author: Alicorn 12 September 2012 03:53:55PM 1 point [-]

Well, you could try learning as a follow to start with, and get a sense of how leads act. This might be awkward if you're really tall, though, and would make it slightly more complicated to invite people to dance.

Comment author: Manfred 17 September 2012 01:32:53PM *  2 points [-]

As a guy, I don't think it's that bad. If you cannot avoid holding your partner, and you don't feel comfortable with it, or you worry that your partner won't feel comfortable with it, there is a well-tested set of ground rules to tell you what to do. Basically, each dance will have a standard "frame," which is how the dancers should (according to various formal groups - the more formal the dance lessons, the more likely this is to actually be an element of the lesson) be positioned relative to each other. If this isn't made clear, nobody will think you're silly if you ask.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2012 04:47:14PM 2 points [-]

It's really not that hard. I did not mean to make it sound complicated. Basically, any thing they teach you in the dance class is fine. If you see people blues dancing or something, don't attempt to copy their dance moves with a random follow during a random song. Don't get drunk.

That's pretty much all it takes.

Comment author: Caspian 09 September 2012 10:31:38AM 15 points [-]

Can you describe some occasions you met a new male friend (who you didn't previously know) at a social event, lesswrong-related or otherwise, and how it wasn't creepy, and what was fun/interesting/good about it.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 09:29:01PM *  2 points [-]

How much to point to specific instances/individuals?

I was asked by one of the participants as to what the policy is on singling out specific instances or individuals. I told her I would ask the community, and get back with her.

So, on one side, we don't want to use anonymity as a platform for safely attacking others (her words). On the other side, we don't want to censor out too much actual data. Also, I don't want women to feel isolated, if they think they are the only one who has a problem with an individual, but just because no one speaks up.

Some options:

-Keep complete anonymity. Do not mention incidents where people can figure out who you are talking about.
-Use incidents freely, but all names will be changed to pseudonyms.
-Only name names if more than one female mentions them.
-Women can list people they feel are problematic. I'll compile the list but keep it private. Only the contributing females can see it.

I lean towards the second option, but will go with whatever the community wants.

Comment author: J_Taylor 14 September 2012 12:29:43AM *  1 point [-]

-Women can list people they feel are problematic. I'll compile the list but keep it private. Only the contributing females can see it.

I endorse this, contingent upon the list being stored in a Lisa Frank binder.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 September 2012 03:56:59PM 5 points [-]

Keep complete anonymity. Do not mention incidents where people can figure out who you are talking about.

Low info but safe.

Use incidents freely, but all names will be changed to pseudonyms.

Transparent.

Only name names if more than one female mentions them.

Reasonable, but potentially drama inducing.

Women can list people they feel are problematic. I'll compile the list but keep it private. Only the contributing females can see it.

Not cool.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 08:21:58AM 4 points [-]

UPDATE- We have reached eight precommitments, which I think is enough to go ahead and start writing. Please send your submission to me by September 25 (two weeks from today)

Comment author: [deleted] 09 September 2012 10:01:50AM *  8 points [-]

Would we have a better idea of how to frame this information if we also did Anonymous Narratives of all LWers?

Comment author: [deleted] 09 September 2012 10:12:08AM 4 points [-]

That is a great idea! I think you should do it!

Comment author: Thomas 09 September 2012 10:23:03AM -2 points [-]

I don't think it's a great idea. I don't think it was supposed to be.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 09 September 2012 12:22:08PM 16 points [-]

I think it would be nice to have both female and male (separately) answers to this question:

"What topics (if any) have you considered posting about (or replying to), but then decided not to because of fear of gender-specific negative response or attention?

More generally, it would be useful to know where people have ugh fields discussing something on LW. Not just because of their gender, but also because of their political opinions etc.

Comment author: MixedNuts 11 September 2012 06:08:29PM 2 points [-]

the account is of a female or transgendered user

Buh? Are you saying "cis female user, or trans female user" or "female user, or female-assigned-at-birth trans user" or "female user, or trans user of any gender and sex" or is that a leftover from editing or what?

Comment author: [deleted] 11 September 2012 06:10:31PM 1 point [-]

The latter.