I personally find calling people “a female” or “a male” (adjectives used as nouns) to come across as somewhat depersonalizing, as if implying that this were the only significant fact about the person. I would say the same goes for these examples:
Racial categories: “He is a black” (noun) vs. “he is black” (predicate adjective)
Nationalities: “He is a Chinese” vs. “he is Chinese”
Sexual orientations: “He is a gay” vs. “he is gay”
The choice of “female” vs. “woman” (and “male” vs. “man”) also seems significant to me. “Female” and “male” sound more clinical and biological — the sort of thing one would expect on a lab report or an autopsy — while “woman” and “man” sound more social or casual. As a male, I have testicles; as a man, I am often expected to be interested in football, porno, and books about war.
I agree broadly with this. I’d suggest that “if you are a female reader” feels less depersonalising than “if you are a female”. It feels to me like it is conveying the relevant criteria without oversimplifying people to just their gender.
That’s even worse IMO. WTH is wrong with women? (Except that it can be taken to exclude children, but I don’t think there are many 10-year-olds reading LW anyway.)
“a female.” instead of “a female something”, it primed me as if the post was searching for any female whatsoever, rather than trying to encourage LessWrong posters who happen to be female to fill out the form.
implicitly exclusionary language towards those who consider themselves male or other.
The general effort to include group X without any real evidence there is low hanging fruit in such targeted recruiting that will result in more new people on the path to rationality than otherwise. Or that the opportunity cost of this is outweighed by great benefits to refining the art.
I agree with your first point, but I’m not sure its significant enough to even comment on. It seems trivial.
To your second point, I don’t see anything wrong with exclusionary language in this case; why do you?
Your third point is interesting. I mean, it’s true that ideally you’d want to know the effects any of this would have. But, honestly and practically, I don’t know if that’s doable. It looks it could lead to paralysis by deliberation. I think just going out and doing things, and often failing and learning, might more beneficial than that level of deliberation.
Your third point is interesting. I mean, it’s true that ideally you’d want to know the effects any of this would have. But, honestly and practically, I don’t know if that’s doable. It looks it could lead to paralysis by deliberation. I think just going out and doing things, and often failing and learning, might more beneficial than that level of deliberation.
The thing is I’ve seen many different kinds of organizations go on these sorts of quests. First they are seldom effective, secondly, and this is much worse, they never seem to give up.
I have no problem LW trying this as an experiment. I just find it extremely unlikely, considering the idealogical demographics we will ever disengage, regardless of effectiveness.
Dislike what, exactly? And why? Are we supposed to read your mind? Are you communicating something meaningful that I’m missing?
I personally find calling people “a female” or “a male” (adjectives used as nouns) to come across as somewhat depersonalizing, as if implying that this were the only significant fact about the person. I would say the same goes for these examples:
Racial categories: “He is a black” (noun) vs. “he is black” (predicate adjective)
Nationalities: “He is a Chinese” vs. “he is Chinese”
Sexual orientations: “He is a gay” vs. “he is gay”
The choice of “female” vs. “woman” (and “male” vs. “man”) also seems significant to me. “Female” and “male” sound more clinical and biological — the sort of thing one would expect on a lab report or an autopsy — while “woman” and “man” sound more social or casual. As a male, I have testicles; as a man, I am often expected to be interested in football, porno, and books about war.
I agree broadly with this. I’d suggest that “if you are a female reader” feels less depersonalising than “if you are a female”. It feels to me like it is conveying the relevant criteria without oversimplifying people to just their gender.
Thanks! Updated OP to “female reader”.
The use of “females” in the first line might as well be changed too. I’d just change it to “female people”, if I were you.
That’s even worse IMO. WTH is wrong with women? (Except that it can be taken to exclude children, but I don’t think there are many 10-year-olds reading LW anyway.)
fixed!
“a female.” instead of “a female something”, it primed me as if the post was searching for any female whatsoever, rather than trying to encourage LessWrong posters who happen to be female to fill out the form.
implicitly exclusionary language towards those who consider themselves male or other.
The general effort to include group X without any real evidence there is low hanging fruit in such targeted recruiting that will result in more new people on the path to rationality than otherwise. Or that the opportunity cost of this is outweighed by great benefits to refining the art.
I agree with your first point, but I’m not sure its significant enough to even comment on. It seems trivial.
To your second point, I don’t see anything wrong with exclusionary language in this case; why do you?
Your third point is interesting. I mean, it’s true that ideally you’d want to know the effects any of this would have. But, honestly and practically, I don’t know if that’s doable. It looks it could lead to paralysis by deliberation. I think just going out and doing things, and often failing and learning, might more beneficial than that level of deliberation.
The thing is I’ve seen many different kinds of organizations go on these sorts of quests. First they are seldom effective, secondly, and this is much worse, they never seem to give up.
I have no problem LW trying this as an experiment. I just find it extremely unlikely, considering the idealogical demographics we will ever disengage, regardless of effectiveness.