It is appropriate to minimize things which are in fact minimal. The majority of these issues have been litigated (metaphorically) before. The fact that they are being brought up over and over again in media articles does not ipso facto mean that the incident has not been adequately dealt with. You can make the argument that these incidents are part of a larger culture problem, but you have to actually make the argument. We’re all Bayesians here, so look at the base rates.
The one piece of new information which seems potentially important is the part where Sonia Joseph says, “he followed her home and insisted on staying over.” I would like to see that incident looked into a bit more.
Given the gender ratio in EA and rationality, it would be surprising if women in EA/rationality didn’t experience more harassment than women in other social settings with more even gender ratios.
Consider a simplified case: suppose 1% of guys harass women and EA/rationality events are 10% women. Then in a group of 1000 EAs/rationalists there would be 9 harassers targeting 100 women. But if the gender ratio was even, then there would be 5 harassers targeting 500 women. So the probability of each woman being targeted by a harasser is lower in a group with more even gender ratio. For it to be the case that women in EA/rationality experience the same amount of harassment as women in other social settings the men in EA/rationality would need to be less likely to harass women than the average man in other social settings.
It is also possible that the average man in EA/rationality is more likely to harass women than the average man in other social settings. I can think of some reasons for this (being socially clumsy, open to breaking social norms etc) and some against (being too shy to make advances, aspiring to high moral standards in EA etc).
While many of these claims are “old news” to those communities, many of these claims are fresh. The baseline rate reasoning is flawed because a) sexual assault remains the most underreported crime, so there is likely instead an iceberg effect, and b) women who were harassed/assaulted have left the movement which changes your distribution, and c) women who would enter your movement otherwise now stay away due to whisper networks and bad vibes.
While many of these claims are “old news” to those communities, many of these claims are fresh.
Can you clarify which specific claims are new? A claim which hasn’t been previously reported in a mainstream news article might still be known to people who have been following community meta-drama.
The baseline rate reasoning is flawed because a) sexual assault remains the most underreported crime, so there is likely instead an iceberg effect,
I’m not sure how this refutes the base rate argument. The iceberg effect exists for both the rationalist community and for every other community you might compare it to (including the ones used to compute the base rates). These should cancel out unless you have reason to believe the iceberg effect is larger for the rationalist community than for others. (For all you know, the iceberg effect might be lower than baseline due to norms about speaking clearly and stating one’s mind.)
b) women who were harassed/assaulted have left the movement which changes your distribution,
Maybe? This seems more plausible to confound the data than a) or c), but again there are reasons to suppose the effect might lean the other way. (Women might be more willing to tolerate bad behavior if they think it’s important to work on alignment than they would tolerate at say, their local Magic the Gathering group).
c) women who would enter your movement otherwise now stay away due to whisper networks and bad vibes.
Even if true, I don’t see how that would be relevant here? Women who enter the movement, get harassed, and then leave would make the harassment rate seem lower because their incidents don’t get counted. Women who never entered the movement in the first place wouldn’t affect the rate at all.
It is appropriate to minimize things which are in fact minimal. The majority of these issues have been litigated (metaphorically) before. The fact that they are being brought up over and over again in media articles does not ipso facto mean that the incident has not been adequately dealt with. You can make the argument that these incidents are part of a larger culture problem, but you have to actually make the argument. We’re all Bayesians here, so look at the base rates.
The one piece of new information which seems potentially important is the part where Sonia Joseph says, “he followed her home and insisted on staying over.” I would like to see that incident looked into a bit more.
Given the gender ratio in EA and rationality, it would be surprising if women in EA/rationality didn’t experience more harassment than women in other social settings with more even gender ratios. Consider a simplified case: suppose 1% of guys harass women and EA/rationality events are 10% women. Then in a group of 1000 EAs/rationalists there would be 9 harassers targeting 100 women. But if the gender ratio was even, then there would be 5 harassers targeting 500 women. So the probability of each woman being targeted by a harasser is lower in a group with more even gender ratio. For it to be the case that women in EA/rationality experience the same amount of harassment as women in other social settings the men in EA/rationality would need to be less likely to harass women than the average man in other social settings. It is also possible that the average man in EA/rationality is more likely to harass women than the average man in other social settings. I can think of some reasons for this (being socially clumsy, open to breaking social norms etc) and some against (being too shy to make advances, aspiring to high moral standards in EA etc).
While many of these claims are “old news” to those communities, many of these claims are fresh. The baseline rate reasoning is flawed because a) sexual assault remains the most underreported crime, so there is likely instead an iceberg effect, and b) women who were harassed/assaulted have left the movement which changes your distribution, and c) women who would enter your movement otherwise now stay away due to whisper networks and bad vibes.
Can you clarify which specific claims are new? A claim which hasn’t been previously reported in a mainstream news article might still be known to people who have been following community meta-drama.
I’m not sure how this refutes the base rate argument. The iceberg effect exists for both the rationalist community and for every other community you might compare it to (including the ones used to compute the base rates). These should cancel out unless you have reason to believe the iceberg effect is larger for the rationalist community than for others. (For all you know, the iceberg effect might be lower than baseline due to norms about speaking clearly and stating one’s mind.)
Maybe? This seems more plausible to confound the data than a) or c), but again there are reasons to suppose the effect might lean the other way. (Women might be more willing to tolerate bad behavior if they think it’s important to work on alignment than they would tolerate at say, their local Magic the Gathering group).
Even if true, I don’t see how that would be relevant here? Women who enter the movement, get harassed, and then leave would make the harassment rate seem lower because their incidents don’t get counted. Women who never entered the movement in the first place wouldn’t affect the rate at all.