Suppose this hypothesis is correct. While improving the gender ratio is instrumentally useful, do we really want to attract the sort of people who are offended by all explicit discussion of messy social reality?
If there exists a person P such that, for every explicit discussion of messy social reality, P is offended, then ~Want(P) with probability very high.
However, if there exists a person P such that, for a given randomly selected explicit discussion of messy social reality, if one does not pay attention to the potential to offend, that they are then offended with high probability, then I don’t think that says much about that person. In fact, the set S of such persons P contains the majority not only of people, but of people worth attracting to meetings, especially before they’ve been exposed to alternate social norms.
Suppose this hypothesis is correct. While improving the gender ratio is instrumentally useful, do we really want to attract the sort of people who are offended by all explicit discussion of messy social reality?
No, but yes.
If there exists a person P such that, for every explicit discussion of messy social reality, P is offended, then ~Want(P) with probability very high.
However, if there exists a person P such that, for a given randomly selected explicit discussion of messy social reality, if one does not pay attention to the potential to offend, that they are then offended with high probability, then I don’t think that says much about that person. In fact, the set S of such persons P contains the majority not only of people, but of people worth attracting to meetings, especially before they’ve been exposed to alternate social norms.