The existence of people like Jessica is not just something the mainstream media needs to learn to acknowledge, but something feminists need to learn to acknowledge as well. There are successful women who don’t like to fight. Which means if the public conversation about women consists of fighting, their voices will be silenced.
And I bet we’re not hearing from men who don’t like fighting.
More generally, if one wants to learn about the distribution of opinions in a group X, one needs to make some kind of a poll, instead of listening to the self-proclaimed speakers for the group.
Otherwise the result may be more strongly influenced by “what makes people become public speakers for a group” than by merely “belonging to the group X”.
Maybe we should always remind ourselves about the forces of self-selection. Looking at a Mensa member, instead of just “a highly intelligent person” we should also think “a person who prefers to publicly associate with groups defined by innate traits (as opposed to behavior or achievements)”. Looking at a professional feminist, instead of “a woman”, we should also think “a person who built their career on hating men”. Looking at a men’s rights activist, instead of “a man”, we should also think “a person who got burned by a divorce”. Etc.
It is also important to notice how much easier is this to do for the groups one doesn’t like (where it feels like an obvious step that doesn’t even require an explanation), than for the groups one does like (where it feels like an unfair generalization).
But this reminder itself is not sufficient to find out the opinions of the silent majority. (Reverting stupidity is not intelligence.) Recognizing that we have noisy data doesn’t automatically un-noise them. Unfortunately, even the public online poll would suffer from “people who prefer to express their opinions in online polls” selection bias.
More generally, if one wants to learn about the distribution of opinions in a group X, one needs to make some kind
of a poll,
Unfortunately, it’s even worse than that, because the same issue (selection bias) arises in polls. In fact, a lot of missing data work that tries to deal with bias adjustment was done in the context of analysis of survey data, I think.
I find myself agreeing with your general statement, that it is important to not treat the outspoken members of a group as indicative whether good or bad, while being somewhat worried that you have fallen into the same pattern in the process of trying to explain it.
Your examples of feminist and men’s rights activist generalizations seem to be examples of the sort of one-sided generalizations you warn about in the very next paragraph. Men’s right’s activists are generalized in a positive fashion—they are victims of circumstance, trying to avenge the wrongs done to them—while feminists are portrayed in a negative fashion—one dimensional bigots building a career on hating men. I think it would have served your point better if you had attempted positive generalizations for both. How you have it now just seems like it is undermining your general point. In fact, you should probably avoid contemporary political groups when giving examples to avoid this sort of this altogether.
It is possible that you deliberately chose those generalizations in order to demonstrate the trap many people fall into. If that is the case, I think you need to make it more clear. Examples of failed rationality are useful, but should be clearly labeled.
Additionally, I don’t see how learning the opinions of the silent majority is reversed stupidity. We already know the opinions of the vocal minority, wouldn’t learning the opinions of the silent majority give us a clear picture of the whole group’s opinions? I suppose there could be a third group left out by this, some sort of Mumbling Moderates, but it should be easy enough to pick them up in well designed polls as well.
My description of men’s rights activists is usually used as negative. First, it implies they are losers, i.e. low-status, which for most people means that their opinions are not worth to consider seriously. Second, it implies that they merely generalize from their personal issues, which against means that they are biased, and that people who don’t have the same issues can ignore them.
To put it in a near mode, imagine that you are at a lecture where someone speaks about men’s rights, and then someone in the audience whispers to their neighbor “this guy had a nasty divorce recently”. Is this remark meant to make the person who heard it treat the lecture more seriously, or less seriously?
My description of men’s rights activists is usually used as negative. First, it implies they are losers, i.e. low-status, which for most people means that their opinions are not worth to consider seriously. Second, it implies that they merely generalize from their personal issues, which against means that they are biased, and that people who don’t have the same issues can ignore them.
I think that’s true of many kinds of activists in the early stages of their (later successful, somewhat) movement. For instance, AIDS activists were considered losers and biased, people of colour were considered losers and biased and so on and so forth. I’m not saying that men’s-right activism is going to become mainstream, since it may be true of all movements. I can’t bring to mind a successful example of a çountermovement that has been later successful, however. The only example I can think of is neo-nazism. As maligned as MRA’s are, it obviously unreasonable to equate them with Hitler. I for one think they have valid problems, but suboptimal, counterproductive and frequently mean ways of dealing with them.
To bring it back to quotes, I feel this one could speak to them:
“Think about the three biggest discouragers in your life… they aren’t your biggest discouragers. You are.”
--Paul Graham
Reminds me of Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs
I recommend reading the linked article; it’s interesting.
I recommend the whole thing, too.
And I bet we’re not hearing from men who don’t like fighting.
More generally, if one wants to learn about the distribution of opinions in a group X, one needs to make some kind of a poll, instead of listening to the self-proclaimed speakers for the group.
Otherwise the result may be more strongly influenced by “what makes people become public speakers for a group” than by merely “belonging to the group X”.
Maybe we should always remind ourselves about the forces of self-selection. Looking at a Mensa member, instead of just “a highly intelligent person” we should also think “a person who prefers to publicly associate with groups defined by innate traits (as opposed to behavior or achievements)”. Looking at a professional feminist, instead of “a woman”, we should also think “a person who built their career on hating men”. Looking at a men’s rights activist, instead of “a man”, we should also think “a person who got burned by a divorce”. Etc.
It is also important to notice how much easier is this to do for the groups one doesn’t like (where it feels like an obvious step that doesn’t even require an explanation), than for the groups one does like (where it feels like an unfair generalization).
But this reminder itself is not sufficient to find out the opinions of the silent majority. (Reverting stupidity is not intelligence.) Recognizing that we have noisy data doesn’t automatically un-noise them. Unfortunately, even the public online poll would suffer from “people who prefer to express their opinions in online polls” selection bias.
Unfortunately, it’s even worse than that, because the same issue (selection bias) arises in polls. In fact, a lot of missing data work that tries to deal with bias adjustment was done in the context of analysis of survey data, I think.
I find myself agreeing with your general statement, that it is important to not treat the outspoken members of a group as indicative whether good or bad, while being somewhat worried that you have fallen into the same pattern in the process of trying to explain it.
Your examples of feminist and men’s rights activist generalizations seem to be examples of the sort of one-sided generalizations you warn about in the very next paragraph. Men’s right’s activists are generalized in a positive fashion—they are victims of circumstance, trying to avenge the wrongs done to them—while feminists are portrayed in a negative fashion—one dimensional bigots building a career on hating men. I think it would have served your point better if you had attempted positive generalizations for both. How you have it now just seems like it is undermining your general point. In fact, you should probably avoid contemporary political groups when giving examples to avoid this sort of this altogether.
It is possible that you deliberately chose those generalizations in order to demonstrate the trap many people fall into. If that is the case, I think you need to make it more clear. Examples of failed rationality are useful, but should be clearly labeled.
Additionally, I don’t see how learning the opinions of the silent majority is reversed stupidity. We already know the opinions of the vocal minority, wouldn’t learning the opinions of the silent majority give us a clear picture of the whole group’s opinions? I suppose there could be a third group left out by this, some sort of Mumbling Moderates, but it should be easy enough to pick them up in well designed polls as well.
My description of men’s rights activists is usually used as negative. First, it implies they are losers, i.e. low-status, which for most people means that their opinions are not worth to consider seriously. Second, it implies that they merely generalize from their personal issues, which against means that they are biased, and that people who don’t have the same issues can ignore them.
To put it in a near mode, imagine that you are at a lecture where someone speaks about men’s rights, and then someone in the audience whispers to their neighbor “this guy had a nasty divorce recently”. Is this remark meant to make the person who heard it treat the lecture more seriously, or less seriously?
I think that’s true of many kinds of activists in the early stages of their (later successful, somewhat) movement. For instance, AIDS activists were considered losers and biased, people of colour were considered losers and biased and so on and so forth. I’m not saying that men’s-right activism is going to become mainstream, since it may be true of all movements. I can’t bring to mind a successful example of a çountermovement that has been later successful, however. The only example I can think of is neo-nazism. As maligned as MRA’s are, it obviously unreasonable to equate them with Hitler. I for one think they have valid problems, but suboptimal, counterproductive and frequently mean ways of dealing with them.
To bring it back to quotes, I feel this one could speak to them:
-Nick Vujicic
BAM!
Social desirability bias remains even in randomized, anonymous polls. But the result would be less wrong than self-selected, public polls.
How fascinating!