michael vassar, your original comment about the word “feminism” dealt with what message one would convey if one called oneself a feminist. This depends on what the word actually means—i.e., what meaning most English-speakers attach to it in their heads—and not whether its meaning is useful. If we want to consider the effects of using a particular word, we should consider the definition of the word in common use, even if we think life would be better if the word meant something else. On the other hand, if we want a word that means something more useful, we should probably coin one, and not re-define a pre-existing word in a way that is conducive to confusion.
Angel, I wish you wouldn’t leave. Largely because, unless I’ve missed a post, I don’t think you’ve responded to Eliezer’s question. Leaving aside the minor disputes, it seems to me that the main substantive issue in this thread is what the “Is Overcoming Bias Male?” post does (or does not do) to drive away women. Much of Eliezer’s original post can be read as leading up to an arguable claim about that issue, that “Robin Hanson committed no sin greater than [etc.]” Now Eliezer has asked you for specifics about what is driving away women (I think he means on the blog in general, but he refers to that post in specific, later in the comment).
Since you have said a number of times that men should listen to women about such an issue rather than just trying to infer what they must think, this seems like exactly the sort of opportunity you’re looking for. Of course I have my own opinions about Robin’s post, which I described in an earlier comment, but I am willing to accept that I may be missing something because I am not a woman. But I will never know what it is that I am missing if no one ever tells me. (And to be honest, if people refuse to tell me even when they could, I start to wonder how important my blunders could really be. If they were really important, wouldn’t the people who are harmed by them want to correct them, if given the chance?)
But I will never know what it is that I am missing if no one ever tells me. (And to be honest, if people refuse to tell me even when they could, I start to wonder how important my blunders could really be. If they were really important, wouldn’t the people who are harmed by them want to correct them, if given the chance?)
Be careful; this is very close to the oft-quoted error of saying “If this is so important to you, why won’t you teach me?” You’re right that someone on the other side of a conflict can teach you, and also that it is in their best interest to do so; it does not logically follow that if they do not, it must not be important. It just means that teaching you about e.g. accomodating women is not their present top priority. Even the people who feel passionately about the debate get to have lives outside of it.
I’m sure you don’t actually believe or intend to suggest that it’s Angel’s duty to stay and educate people. I just wanted to point out that hole in the road before somebody else fell in it.
Be careful; this is very close to the oft-quoted error of saying “If this is so important to you, why won’t you teach me?” You’re right that someone on the other side of a conflict can teach you, and also that it is in their best interest to do so; it does not logically follow that if they do not, it must not be important.
To reject another oft quoted saying, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If people consistently don’t rfriel something when it is in their best interest to give it to him then it is correct for him to consider that evidence that said thing does not exist.
If people consistently don’t [give] rfriel something when it is in their best interest to give it to him then it is correct for him to consider that evidence that said thing does not exist.
It is indeed correct for him to consider it. A good next step in evaluating that consideration might be to seek out other sources for that evidence than individuals currently engaged in a realtime debate—for example, published resources on the topic. That way, he can distinguish between a real lack of evidence, and the presence of some incentive for any given individual not to focus their energy on teaching it to him.
michael vassar, your original comment about the word “feminism” dealt with what message one would convey if one called oneself a feminist. This depends on what the word actually means—i.e., what meaning most English-speakers attach to it in their heads—and not whether its meaning is useful. If we want to consider the effects of using a particular word, we should consider the definition of the word in common use, even if we think life would be better if the word meant something else. On the other hand, if we want a word that means something more useful, we should probably coin one, and not re-define a pre-existing word in a way that is conducive to confusion.
Angel, I wish you wouldn’t leave. Largely because, unless I’ve missed a post, I don’t think you’ve responded to Eliezer’s question. Leaving aside the minor disputes, it seems to me that the main substantive issue in this thread is what the “Is Overcoming Bias Male?” post does (or does not do) to drive away women. Much of Eliezer’s original post can be read as leading up to an arguable claim about that issue, that “Robin Hanson committed no sin greater than [etc.]” Now Eliezer has asked you for specifics about what is driving away women (I think he means on the blog in general, but he refers to that post in specific, later in the comment).
Since you have said a number of times that men should listen to women about such an issue rather than just trying to infer what they must think, this seems like exactly the sort of opportunity you’re looking for. Of course I have my own opinions about Robin’s post, which I described in an earlier comment, but I am willing to accept that I may be missing something because I am not a woman. But I will never know what it is that I am missing if no one ever tells me. (And to be honest, if people refuse to tell me even when they could, I start to wonder how important my blunders could really be. If they were really important, wouldn’t the people who are harmed by them want to correct them, if given the chance?)
Be careful; this is very close to the oft-quoted error of saying “If this is so important to you, why won’t you teach me?” You’re right that someone on the other side of a conflict can teach you, and also that it is in their best interest to do so; it does not logically follow that if they do not, it must not be important. It just means that teaching you about e.g. accomodating women is not their present top priority. Even the people who feel passionately about the debate get to have lives outside of it.
I’m sure you don’t actually believe or intend to suggest that it’s Angel’s duty to stay and educate people. I just wanted to point out that hole in the road before somebody else fell in it.
To reject another oft quoted saying, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If people consistently don’t rfriel something when it is in their best interest to give it to him then it is correct for him to consider that evidence that said thing does not exist.
The problem is that people can give up on trying to explain something if they don’t feel as though they’re being heard.
I suggest that “complicated mess” is at least as good a hypothesis as “nothing there”.
It is indeed correct for him to consider it. A good next step in evaluating that consideration might be to seek out other sources for that evidence than individuals currently engaged in a realtime debate—for example, published resources on the topic. That way, he can distinguish between a real lack of evidence, and the presence of some incentive for any given individual not to focus their energy on teaching it to him.