See, I always worry that the easiest way to get through grading is to just give everyone A's regardless of what they turned in. So I feel like you somehow have to factor in a reward for quality or that's what your system will collapse into?

But doesn't that make you inclined to not read as carefully or grade as thoroughly or not leave as many comments? "Oh whatever, that was mostly right. Yay, high score!"

I'm both waiting around to see if anyone wants to write up an answer to the flirting question, while also thinking about whether some gender relations questions can first be decomposed into a series of well-written polls, so we could see which issues are the most contentious. Can polls be embedded into top-level posts?

Thanks for the link! It makes it much clearer to me how this project started.

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. [...] It is ok if they are half-formed, stream-of-consciousness writings.

However, I'm wondering if we would make more progress on gender issues if these submissions were structured essay prompts that requiring more argument or analysis? For example, a weekly (monthly?) gender-related question prompt with compiled responses. I ask because my reaction upon seeing this post was that this person is probably just sorta rambling about themselves, but if they were trying to make a cohesive point, then it would be kind of an unflattering one. Now that I have more reason to think that it's most likely the first option, I'm wondering if there's room for more structured posts.

An example of a gender-related writing prompt might be:

Do you believe that flirting with others is an ethical means of accomplishing non-sexual goals? Please define your terms and provide examples to illustrate your stance.

It's also gender-neutral, so anyone could respond? I guess the examples might be anecdotes that might require anonymity, but then the authors can use analogies instead.

Like if the scientists get their best thinking done while chopping carrots or something?

I was about to write about how it might feel weird to have someone else do tasks that you're perfectly capable of doing. Or maybe scientists might feel used (objectified?) that society only values them for their output if there's assistants constantly yanking away any non-science and saying, "Sir, please get back to your work!" But then I realized that this could be overcome by having the scientists decide on exactly which chores need to be done. However, that leads to the overhead of explaining to someone how you want something done, which is sometimes more annoying than just doing it yourself.

Would important scientists still do science at the same level of quality if all their stuff was aggressively personalized? I can think of a couple of mechanisms that might kick in. They might work harder because they feel like they have to match the help they're receiving in scientific output. But they might also take the assistance as a sign that they're great and valuable and start slacking off, like ... divas?

Also, from what I've seen/read, I think Japanese culture has this type of system for elders/experts in various fields. Maybe it applies to scientists?

I don't think the contest model fits this situation very well. As I understand, a contest is designed to measure aptitude along only one axis (like who can run faster or play chess better) and it's the job of the contest organizer to keep the other conditions as equal as possible. Meanwhile, things like dating or job/roommate interviews or college admissions are really attempts at selecting people you'd prefer to be around and get along with, so you're choosing from a set of points in a nebulous region in human-qualities-space that doesn't linearize nicely. For example, if I say that I'm going to hire the candidate that's objectively faster and more accurate at filing papers (which is easy to measure), then according to the contest model, I'm committing to overlooking other qualities like loudness or disagreeableness or smelliness or tardiness, which are also important factors to consider when hiring someone. These are also things I might not even consider until the pool of applicants is available!

This is why rejections from these types of places tactfully say "We had a lot of promising people and a limited number of spots so we couldn't accept all of them," because if they write, "We thought you were too tardy," then next time you apply and be super-punctual, that still won't guarantee you a spot. Because other factors!

I think the contest is tempting because it's simple and it makes you feel like you're more in control of the outcome than you really are ("All I have to do is be less tardy!") but generally I think modeling these blobby types of interactions as contests creates unnecessary pain, because it needlessly creates losers when there aren't ... really any. You weren't that in control to begin with (which can be hard to accept), so don't be so hard on yourself for the result! You might get to date Alice but not Barbara and you might get accepted to Berkeley and rejected by UCLA.

I don't think I follow. This is what you want from every lady in the store/library/train who thinks you're cute?