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.

BarbaraB comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion

21 Post author: Apprentice 06 January 2014 12:16AM

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

Comments (866)

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

Comment author: BarbaraB 06 January 2014 08:08:11AM 3 points [-]

I have no idea what could be done about it.

Maybe invite blacks or other members of marginalized communities explicitly ?

Some time ago, Eliezer wrote a post, which made it clear he would be glad to see more women on LW. I thing his article was well written. Did any of You guys, the opponents of crazier versions of feminism, feel annoyed by that ? Later, there were other efforts to drag women here. (It does feel flattering, I tell You). Now, the percentage of LW women has grown slightly (lazy to look up the census result), athough we are still a minority.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 January 2014 03:33:50PM 9 points [-]

the percentage of LW women has grown slightly (lazy to look up the census result)

It grew from 3% in 2009 to 8.9% (cis) + 1.3% (trans) in 2012.

Comment author: jsalvatier 06 January 2014 11:55:39PM 0 points [-]

1.3% trans! That's super cool

Comment author: VAuroch 09 January 2014 07:50:02AM 2 points [-]

Given that a large part of LW is drawn from the Bay Area, which IIRC has significantly higher trans density than the at-large 1%, that's actually under where I would expect.

Wait, 1.3% trans women. Depending on the number of trans men, that may be much closer to representative of the broader likely-to-encounter-LW population. (Which I'd expect to have 2x-5x as many trans people as the general population.)

Comment author: [deleted] 11 January 2014 10:47:27AM *  2 points [-]

From the 2012 survey results:

GENDER:
M (cis): 1021, 86.2%
F (cis): 105, 8.9%
M (trans f->m): 3, 0.3%
F (trans m->f): 16, 1.3%
Other: 29, 2.4%
No answer: 11, 0.9%

Previously discussed here.

Comment author: VAuroch 12 January 2014 01:44:03AM 0 points [-]

OK, still lower than I would expect, then. Somewhat disappointing.

Comment author: hyporational 09 January 2014 06:18:54AM *  1 point [-]

I don't think simple invitations are going to make much difference.

If some marginal group didn't drift here spontaneously because they're inherently interested in the community, then we must provide them other incentives. Unfortunately this might mean privileging them some way, which to be honest I usually find so unjust and contrary to truth seeking it pisses me off.

Perhaps there are benign forms of such privileging, but none are cognitively available to me at the moment.

Comment author: BarbaraB 10 January 2014 05:46:57PM 2 points [-]

What if they visit the website and feel hesitant, whether the atmosphere is welcoming enough for them, considering all the HBD staff ? I do not imply we should censor HBD away, I am interested in it too. If there is some thruth to it, we will have to face it sooner or later anyway, taking into account all the DNA sequencing projects etc. In the world outside, I got yelled at for my interest a couple time, it is my interest to have clear discussion here, so that I know, where things stand. But, anyway, regardless of nature or nurture, all the data agree, there is a significant portion of intelligent individuals in all marginalised groups, and LW would very much benefit from them. If I only could express something like that, and not sound creepy... Some analogy of this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ap/of_gender_and_rationality/