I want you to treat men and women the same way; and not to take gender into consideration.
What does “not taking gender into consideration” actually mean? I hope it doesn’t mean “treating everyone as if they were male”—and yet in the ancestor post you seem to imply that it you took gender into consideration, it would only be your behaviour towards women that would have to be altered (being nicer to them), not your behavior towards men.
Do you see your logical inconsistency here? If by taking gender into account your attitude towards men doesn’t change but your attitude towards women changes, that means you’re ALREADY taking gender into account: you’re just taking it into account by making “male-gender interaction” the “default” interaction, instead of figuring out what “ungendered interaction” would be actually like.
If I actually believed men and women were the same, as a man who has interacted mostly with men, it would almost exclusively change my beliefs about women (I would think women were secretly just like I believe men to be, since that is the simplest way to explain my observations). Its not clear why I would believe such a thing, but if I thought pretending there was no difference was a good idea and if I really wanted to pretend vigorously, I would basically be “treating everyone as if they were male.” If I were then to stop pretending, I would only change my behavior towards women.
I don’t think this is a good position, but it is not inconsistent (its also what some people imprecisely purport to do and ask others to do).
What does “not taking gender into consideration” actually mean? I hope it doesn’t mean “treating everyone as if they were male”
That would not be a remotely reasonable interpretation. It would be a trivially silly position.
Do you see your logical inconsistency here?
You just found something bad that you ‘hoped he didn’t do’, assumed the most conveniently negative world, decided Phil was in it and declared him logically inconsistent. This is not remotely reasonable. Phil has made his actual logic overwhelmingly clear. He even supplied a numbered list for your convenience.
It is all well and good to make the point that a balanced one size fits all communication strategy will take into account all potential conversation partners. That is obviously the practical approach.
One of the basic rules of polite discourse—and this applies to either gender—is that you should always assume a positive understanding when there is doubt or a potential detail is not specified. This was a situation where “Yes, and” or “We must remember that” would flow nicely. The point is then much more likely to be accepted with full agreement by all sides. This applies for either gender and for that matter even when using Crocker’s rules.
(I should note, by the way, that saying someone is being logically inconsistent comes across as a significant charge in this particular environment. ie. I prefer to be told I’m being a @#%@. At least that is a subjective accusation not an objectively false one.)
That would not be a remotely reasonable interpretation. It would be a trivially silly position.
It’s not clear to me where this is coming from, since “treat everyone as though they were male” is probably the most common first approach to sex-blindness.
People, particularly intelligent people, are notorious for underestimating inferential distance so I can not pretend to speak to just how blatantly obvious a particular concept is to a general population. I can say that in the context it is overwhelmingly clear that Phil is not making this mistake. He more or less assumed ‘not treating everyone as though they were male’ as the starting point in the discussion and worked from there.
The first time someone’s position is misrepresented it is a simple mistake. Once it becomes a pattern it points to something deeper. In this case a conflict between logical reasoning and (in this case extremely minor) social politics. These are two incompatible kinds of thought and it is always a mistake to discuss a question of what people ‘should do’ from a perspective of logical coherency. Well, unless you are masochistic.
(Note that this interpretation is giving the maximal benefit of the doubt. That is, not assuming that the people Phil is talking to actually lack comprehension skills.)
I can say that in the context it is overwhelmingly clear that Phil is not making this mistake.
Overwhelmingly clear to you, perhaps. The context I had for his original claim was:
If this is a gender-specific thing that drives women away, then the obvious solution would be to have users identify themselves as women at signup, and have their usernames show up in pink, so we know to be nice to them. Yet I don’t think this would be less offensive to women! If I treat everybody the same, I’m discriminating against women; if I treat them differently, I’m also discriminating against women.
This to me strongly suggests that men are the default, and women are an aberrant case, with the implication that treating everyone the same means treating everyone like a man (since no one currently has a pink username).
Now, Alicorn could have worded her response better- it wasn’t clear she was saying “why not be nicer to everyone?”- and that could have cleared up some of the confusion much earlier.
Note that this interpretation is giving the maximal benefit of the doubt. That is, not assuming that the people Phil is talking to actually lack comprehension skills.
Then… why did you use words like “misinterpretation” instead of “miscommunication”? Saying “oh, both people were unclear, it looks like we were talking past one another ” is far better than the approach you took. To me, your comment reads like defensiveness in response to an accusation of sexism, as well as dismissal by bringing up “social politics” in contrast to “logical reasoning.” (If you were to gender those two phrases, which would be which?)
Then… why did you use words like “misinterpretation” instead of “miscommunication”?
They have different meanings, one applied and the difference mattered.
Saying “oh, both people were unclear, it looks like we were talking past one another ” is far better than the approach you took.
Not for the purpose of my statement. There could even be place for an additional message that the kind of behavior I described is antisocial, rude and highly undesirable. Sufficiently objectionable as to make all considerations of ‘bluntness’ trivial by comparison.
as well as dismissal by bringing up “social politics” in contrast to “logical reasoning.” (If you were to gender those two phrases, which would be which?)
You ask that question as though it should provide some rhetorical support for a point you were making. It appears instead to be loosely related tangent. I meant precisely what I said about social politics and logic. It is a message that is helpful for people who encounter questions like the one Phil asked and seek genuine understanding of how such situations work.
Questions of “should” just aren’t about creating a coherent protocol of behavior. Sometimes a coherent protocol emerges and that is great but ultimately having situations in which you are ‘doomed if you do; doomed if you don’t’ a standard part of how social rules work. The trick to navigating them is to stop expecting reason to apply and start gaming them like everyone else.
There could even be place for an additional message that the kind of behavior I described is antisocial, rude and highly undesirable. Sufficiently objectionable as to make all considerations of ‘bluntness’ trivial by comparison.
I feel this should be elaborated on, as I don’t want to misunderstand what you’re getting at here.
I can say that in the context it is overwhelmingly clear that Phil is not making this mistake.
It is not overwhelmingly clear to me. It wasn’t overwhemlingly clear to Vaniver. I don’t think paulfchristiano found it overwhelmingly clear either (as he argued against my own post from the opposite direction, and he certainly comprehended my meaning much better than you seemed to do).
Then why would differentiating according to gender only modify Phil’s attitude towards women, rather towards both genders?
Why are you attacking my position but ignore the reasons I mentioned for having it?
You just found something bad that you ‘hoped he didn’t do’, assumed the most conveniently negative world, decided Phil was in it and declared him logically inconsistent.
No, I did not, I said clearly why it seemed to me he was doing it.
As long as we’re talking about our personal preferences, let me note that I don’t appreciate being told I “assumed” stuff, when I instead provided in detail the reasoning that led me to the conclusion.
Then why would differentiating according to gender only modify Phil’s attitude towards women, rather towards both genders?
You said that, not Phil.
Why are you attacking my position but ignore the reasons I mentioned for having it?
Because you didn’t present any good reasons for having your position. Quite frankly and since you asked, I didn’t believe you intended your mention of ‘implication’ to be an argument that your caricature of Phil’s position was actually justified by the literal meaning because if so it was a terrible argument.
As long as we’re talking about our personal preferences, let me note that I don’t appreciate being told I “assumed” stuff, when I instead provided in detail the reasoning that led me to the conclusion.
I assumed some semblance of good faith from the opening “I hope you didn’t”. As though you were at least acknowledging that you were reading something into his words that is at very best extremely ambiguous. I did not think it was rhetoric spin—because given the context it would have just made your comment worse.
I said to Phil “in the ancestor post you seem to imply that if you took gender into consideration, it would only be your behaviour towards women that would have to be altered (being nicer to them), not your behavior towards men.”
My comment meant precisely what it said. Phil spoke about a possible solution of female members’ names being colored pink so that he knows to be nicer at them. He didn’t speak about male member’s names being colored blue so that he knows to be rougher at them. That’s an obvious asymmetry which requires an explanation.
If you have an explanation, provide it. I provided one, and paulfchristiano provided one, but you just ignored the whole point and told me I’m assuming the most convenient negative explanation.
I treat people a certain way. Someone suggested that the way I treat people is not well-tolerated by women. I said, among other things, that treating women differently to accomodate them might not be appreciated by women. Alicorn suggested that (to paraphrase), men like to be treated with c=3 and women like to be treated with c=7, so I should treat everyone with c = something in-between 3 and 7.
I asked whether that should be weighted (by the number of men and women present, or the number of men and women desired, or not at all); but more importantly, replied that that is inconsistent: Either
There is no significant mean difference between the way men and women like to be treated, or
There is a difference, and therefore I should treat men with c=3 and women with c=7.
Saying there is a difference, and I can use my knowledge of that difference to compute c = (9x3 + 1x7)/10 = 3.4 (assuming LW is 90% male); but I can’t use my knowledge of that difference to treat men with c=3 and women with c=7, seems illogical. If the preferences of men are distributed normally around c=3, and the preferences of women are distributed normally around c=7, using gender as a factor in my model will result in lower error, no matter how great the variance in these distributions is.
I can imagine possible justifications for the c=3.4 approach; but I can’t imagine any justifications strong enough not just to rule out even considering the c(gender) approach for all applications, but also to impugn the morality of those who consider it.
I am harping on this because it is an error in reasoning that, in American intellectual society, is not only committed routinely, but is generally assumed to be morally superior to any rational approach.
People derive lots of negative utility from noticing that they are being treated differently according to gender. If you do so, you are unlikely to be able to keep that a secret. Therefore, you should treat both genders the same.
That might be a good reason, but IMHO not good enough to take the option off the table.
Also, it seems to me the opposite may be more true: People like being treated in ways that indicate they are successfully conforming to gender stereotypes. Boys and men like being given the signal that they are masculine; girls and women, that they are feminine.
This is true for some stereotypes but not for others. In addition, people don’t want to feel that you are treating them differently because of their gender, even if they’d feel good if you treated them differently because you noticed their conformance to stereotypes. People will probably be able to tell what you are doing.
What does “not taking gender into consideration” actually mean? I hope it doesn’t mean “treating everyone as if they were male”—and yet in the ancestor post you seem to imply that it you took gender into consideration, it would only be your behaviour towards women that would have to be altered (being nicer to them), not your behavior towards men.
Do you see your logical inconsistency here? If by taking gender into account your attitude towards men doesn’t change but your attitude towards women changes, that means you’re ALREADY taking gender into account: you’re just taking it into account by making “male-gender interaction” the “default” interaction, instead of figuring out what “ungendered interaction” would be actually like.
If I actually believed men and women were the same, as a man who has interacted mostly with men, it would almost exclusively change my beliefs about women (I would think women were secretly just like I believe men to be, since that is the simplest way to explain my observations). Its not clear why I would believe such a thing, but if I thought pretending there was no difference was a good idea and if I really wanted to pretend vigorously, I would basically be “treating everyone as if they were male.” If I were then to stop pretending, I would only change my behavior towards women.
I don’t think this is a good position, but it is not inconsistent (its also what some people imprecisely purport to do and ask others to do).
That would not be a remotely reasonable interpretation. It would be a trivially silly position.
You just found something bad that you ‘hoped he didn’t do’, assumed the most conveniently negative world, decided Phil was in it and declared him logically inconsistent. This is not remotely reasonable. Phil has made his actual logic overwhelmingly clear. He even supplied a numbered list for your convenience.
It is all well and good to make the point that a balanced one size fits all communication strategy will take into account all potential conversation partners. That is obviously the practical approach.
One of the basic rules of polite discourse—and this applies to either gender—is that you should always assume a positive understanding when there is doubt or a potential detail is not specified. This was a situation where “Yes, and” or “We must remember that” would flow nicely. The point is then much more likely to be accepted with full agreement by all sides. This applies for either gender and for that matter even when using Crocker’s rules.
(I should note, by the way, that saying someone is being logically inconsistent comes across as a significant charge in this particular environment. ie. I prefer to be told I’m being a @#%@. At least that is a subjective accusation not an objectively false one.)
It’s not clear to me where this is coming from, since “treat everyone as though they were male” is probably the most common first approach to sex-blindness.
People, particularly intelligent people, are notorious for underestimating inferential distance so I can not pretend to speak to just how blatantly obvious a particular concept is to a general population. I can say that in the context it is overwhelmingly clear that Phil is not making this mistake. He more or less assumed ‘not treating everyone as though they were male’ as the starting point in the discussion and worked from there.
The first time someone’s position is misrepresented it is a simple mistake. Once it becomes a pattern it points to something deeper. In this case a conflict between logical reasoning and (in this case extremely minor) social politics. These are two incompatible kinds of thought and it is always a mistake to discuss a question of what people ‘should do’ from a perspective of logical coherency. Well, unless you are masochistic.
(Note that this interpretation is giving the maximal benefit of the doubt. That is, not assuming that the people Phil is talking to actually lack comprehension skills.)
Overwhelmingly clear to you, perhaps. The context I had for his original claim was:
This to me strongly suggests that men are the default, and women are an aberrant case, with the implication that treating everyone the same means treating everyone like a man (since no one currently has a pink username).
Now, Alicorn could have worded her response better- it wasn’t clear she was saying “why not be nicer to everyone?”- and that could have cleared up some of the confusion much earlier.
Then… why did you use words like “misinterpretation” instead of “miscommunication”? Saying “oh, both people were unclear, it looks like we were talking past one another ” is far better than the approach you took. To me, your comment reads like defensiveness in response to an accusation of sexism, as well as dismissal by bringing up “social politics” in contrast to “logical reasoning.” (If you were to gender those two phrases, which would be which?)
They have different meanings, one applied and the difference mattered.
Not for the purpose of my statement. There could even be place for an additional message that the kind of behavior I described is antisocial, rude and highly undesirable. Sufficiently objectionable as to make all considerations of ‘bluntness’ trivial by comparison.
You ask that question as though it should provide some rhetorical support for a point you were making. It appears instead to be loosely related tangent. I meant precisely what I said about social politics and logic. It is a message that is helpful for people who encounter questions like the one Phil asked and seek genuine understanding of how such situations work.
Questions of “should” just aren’t about creating a coherent protocol of behavior. Sometimes a coherent protocol emerges and that is great but ultimately having situations in which you are ‘doomed if you do; doomed if you don’t’ a standard part of how social rules work. The trick to navigating them is to stop expecting reason to apply and start gaming them like everyone else.
Any comments on the context of his comment?
I feel this should be elaborated on, as I don’t want to misunderstand what you’re getting at here.
It is not overwhelmingly clear to me. It wasn’t overwhemlingly clear to Vaniver. I don’t think paulfchristiano found it overwhelmingly clear either (as he argued against my own post from the opposite direction, and he certainly comprehended my meaning much better than you seemed to do).
Then why would differentiating according to gender only modify Phil’s attitude towards women, rather towards both genders?
Why are you attacking my position but ignore the reasons I mentioned for having it?
No, I did not, I said clearly why it seemed to me he was doing it.
As long as we’re talking about our personal preferences, let me note that I don’t appreciate being told I “assumed” stuff, when I instead provided in detail the reasoning that led me to the conclusion.
You said that, not Phil.
Because you didn’t present any good reasons for having your position. Quite frankly and since you asked, I didn’t believe you intended your mention of ‘implication’ to be an argument that your caricature of Phil’s position was actually justified by the literal meaning because if so it was a terrible argument.
I assumed some semblance of good faith from the opening “I hope you didn’t”. As though you were at least acknowledging that you were reading something into his words that is at very best extremely ambiguous. I did not think it was rhetoric spin—because given the context it would have just made your comment worse.
We’re not communicating here.
I said to Phil “in the ancestor post you seem to imply that if you took gender into consideration, it would only be your behaviour towards women that would have to be altered (being nicer to them), not your behavior towards men.”
My comment meant precisely what it said. Phil spoke about a possible solution of female members’ names being colored pink so that he knows to be nicer at them. He didn’t speak about male member’s names being colored blue so that he knows to be rougher at them. That’s an obvious asymmetry which requires an explanation.
If you have an explanation, provide it. I provided one, and paulfchristiano provided one, but you just ignored the whole point and told me I’m assuming the most convenient negative explanation.
I treat people a certain way. Someone suggested that the way I treat people is not well-tolerated by women. I said, among other things, that treating women differently to accomodate them might not be appreciated by women. Alicorn suggested that (to paraphrase), men like to be treated with c=3 and women like to be treated with c=7, so I should treat everyone with c = something in-between 3 and 7.
I asked whether that should be weighted (by the number of men and women present, or the number of men and women desired, or not at all); but more importantly, replied that that is inconsistent: Either
There is no significant mean difference between the way men and women like to be treated, or
There is a difference, and therefore I should treat men with c=3 and women with c=7.
Saying there is a difference, and I can use my knowledge of that difference to compute c = (9x3 + 1x7)/10 = 3.4 (assuming LW is 90% male); but I can’t use my knowledge of that difference to treat men with c=3 and women with c=7, seems illogical. If the preferences of men are distributed normally around c=3, and the preferences of women are distributed normally around c=7, using gender as a factor in my model will result in lower error, no matter how great the variance in these distributions is.
I can imagine possible justifications for the c=3.4 approach; but I can’t imagine any justifications strong enough not just to rule out even considering the c(gender) approach for all applications, but also to impugn the morality of those who consider it.
I am harping on this because it is an error in reasoning that, in American intellectual society, is not only committed routinely, but is generally assumed to be morally superior to any rational approach.
Of course, the ideal is for each individual to find out c(individual) and use that.
People derive lots of negative utility from noticing that they are being treated differently according to gender. If you do so, you are unlikely to be able to keep that a secret. Therefore, you should treat both genders the same.
(Isn’t the mean a least-squares estimator?)
That might be a good reason, but IMHO not good enough to take the option off the table. Also, it seems to me the opposite may be more true: People like being treated in ways that indicate they are successfully conforming to gender stereotypes. Boys and men like being given the signal that they are masculine; girls and women, that they are feminine.
D’oh! Yes. Removed my comment.
This is true for some stereotypes but not for others. In addition, people don’t want to feel that you are treating them differently because of their gender, even if they’d feel good if you treated them differently because you noticed their conformance to stereotypes. People will probably be able to tell what you are doing.