Most people are heterosexual. Anyway, you obviously are angry at me from our exchange in the racism thread. Please don’t go around digging up my old posts to respond to just out of anger. Instead, you might ask yourself why exactly you are feeling angry. Could there be cognitive dissonance at work?
Most people demonstrate heterosexual behavior in modern heteronormative society. There is a huge difference between this and the generalization “most people are heterosexual”. In ancient Greece, “most people” (or men, anyway) were capable of having both pederastic relationships and productive heterosexual marriage. I have no data but I’d really like to see some, on how much societal norms affect orientation. Which is itself a relatively new concept.
Most people demonstrate heterosexual behavior in modern heteronormative society. There is a huge difference between this and the generalization “most people are heterosexual”.
If “is heterosexual” is determined by “sexually attracted to given gender” and sexual attraction to genders is mostly controlled by the sexual normativity of a society (is this the case? I believe so but I notice I have no evidence) then there is less of a difference between the two than you’d think.
Basically I distinguish “capable of experiencing sexual feelings towards” from “will ever actually have an experience with”, here. It’s like saying that “I’ll, like, never fall in love with a black man” (due to the demographics of my current location) versus “I never could fall in love with a black man”. It seems to me that the logical extension of these principles is that people may be capable of sexual feelings differing from the sexual norms of their society, to a greater extent than deviation already present, but do not articulate, understand, acknowledge, or have opportunity to experience these feelings. (There has to be a more sophisticated way to phrase this than “almost everyone is secretly a little bisexual”, because that of course dramatically oversimplifies the matter and gives the wrong mouthfeel, but.)
I guess “secretly a little bisexual, but due to society’s constraints will never consider or pursue a same-sex relationship” strikes me as heterosexual, not bisexual.
Sexuality is one of those areas where people want an abstract ‘core’ that is held separate and above environmental factors. For example a person may like to believe “I am the kind of person who could fall in love with a black man” and feel that never having fallen in love with a black man is a fact about their environment, not about their ability to love. I was wary of the difference you elucidated being something like “I like to believe that I am the kind of person who would be sexually attracted to both genders if only society was more permitting”.
Most people demonstrate heterosexual behavior in modern heteronormative society. There is a huge difference between this and the generalization “most people are heterosexual”.
Well my comment was kinda focused on modern society. I’m not sure how things were in Ancient Greece. Would Socrates or Plato have been particularly distracted if a Greek girl in a short toga had wandered into one of their Socratic sessions?
Probably! My intuition is that your art as a rationalist is most in need when it’s hardest to exercise (HJPEV, I think, possibly also in the Sequences) and that you shouldn’t expect the world to give you the peace of mind to apply all your skill to a question. I can bench-press more weight with a proper safety bar and a spotter, but the real world doesn’t often offer safety bars and spotters so I press less weight, without the bar and spotter, and have a better estimate of my capabilities.
I disagree, I think it’s better to practice stuff without distractions, at least at first. So for example I wouldn’t prefer to have rational club meetings at a construction site; or to have people talking on their cell phones during the meeting.
I disagree, I think it’s better to practice stuff without distractions, at least at first. So for example I wouldn’t prefer to have rational club meetings at a construction site; or to have people talking on their cell phones during the meeting.
That’s unexpected. In this comparison of sex based distractions to construction sites jackhammers turn out to be analogous to breasts. I’d usually expect something different.
It’s not so much a matter of comparison as a matter of applying shokwave’s reasoning to other distractions.
He didn’t make the argument that simply having girls present is only a mild distraction. Instead, his argument is that one should accept distractions because they are present in normal life.
He didn’t make the argument that simply having girls present is only a mild distraction. Instead, his argument is that one should accept distractions because they are present in normal life.
I know, I agree with your argument. (Without supporting sex segregated lesswrong meetups as being a remotely practical idea!)
Ah. The male-only problem is pretty much a permanent decision—it’s a Hard Problem to attract females to an all-male group. So if you had to decide between never any distractions or always distractions… I would pick distractions. Otherwise I feel training caps out too early.
it’s a Hard Problem to attract females to an all-male group.
Who cares? It’s like this is a ballroom dancing society. Besides, as a practical matter what I envision is occasional meetings where girls are excluded. I think it would also make sense to have girl-only meetings.
I care. I certainly care about attracting half of humanity to rationality groups more than I’d care about attracting that subset of males that would be significantly distracted in mixed-gender company.
Besides, as a practical matter what I envision is occasional meetings where girls are excluded. I think it would also make sense to have girl-only meetings.
At the start of this discussion you used the term “men-only”. But in contrast you’re consistently using the term “girl” to refer to a member of the opposite gender.
The corresponding term to “men” and “men-only” is “women” and “women-only”. If you’d used “male”, the corresponding term would be “female”. Only if you had used “boy” or “guy” could the corresponding term be “girl”.
Take care of the connotations of your word choices, especially given the content of your suggestions.
I care. I certainly care about attracting half of humanity to rationality groups more than I’d care about attracting that subset of males that would be significantly distracted in mixed-gender company
If that’s your preference, then I can’t really argue with it. In my opinion, people are too concerned about attracting girls (or women if you prefer) to meetings.
In my opinion, people are too concerned about attracting girls (or women if you prefer) to meetings.
Downvoted for failure to either correct or justify the insulting connotations of your word-choices.
Why do you think that I should care more about attracting easily distracted boys to meetings, than I should care about attracting adult female rationalists to such? To make it more specific, why would I choose to discuss with you, if that meant I had to trade away the capacity to discuss with Alicorn or AnnaSalamon or NancyLebovitz?
Frankly I think that your attitude would be much more distracting to me than the presence of boobs would be.
Why do you think that I should care more about attracting easily distracted boys to meetings, than I should care about attracting adult female rationalists to such
It’s just a matter of who you prefer. Anyway, I’m not going to get sidetracked in a debate over “girl” versus “woman.” If you prefer to say “boy,” I can’t control your use of language.
Serious answer from someone who’s in the NYC group:
in practice, people do care. Both guys and girls are more likely to attend an event with a less skewed gender balance. Gender balance helps attendance at events where there’s socializing.
I don’t know what kinds of topics you’re imagining, but usually we don’t focus on topics that need to be single-gender. Our topics are things like clustering algorithms and prediction markets and TED talks. Nothing you really need to shoo the girls or boys out of the room for.
Not that I wouldn’t mind a Rationalist Hen Party sometime.
If there comes a time when there are enough rationalists who want to go to rationalist meetups that there can simultaniously be all male, all female and mixed sex groups then that would work and even have some benefits for some members of either sex who could plausibly be slightly more comfortable. I don’t care if you also include a group for otherkin.
I approve of the ideological stand you are taking. Unfortunately evolution isn’t nearly as open minded. Of all the prevalent trends in human behavior to say “but it could just be cultural” sexual attraction is the most absurd. Evolution cares about babies, not political convenience.
Actually, I came upon this post and this thread while digging around the site for posts relevant to rationalist community. Your post caught my attention while checking the comments thread.
Most people are heterosexual. Anyway, you obviously are angry at me from our exchange in the racism thread. Please don’t go around digging up my old posts to respond to just out of anger. Instead, you might ask yourself why exactly you are feeling angry. Could there be cognitive dissonance at work?
Most people demonstrate heterosexual behavior in modern heteronormative society. There is a huge difference between this and the generalization “most people are heterosexual”. In ancient Greece, “most people” (or men, anyway) were capable of having both pederastic relationships and productive heterosexual marriage. I have no data but I’d really like to see some, on how much societal norms affect orientation. Which is itself a relatively new concept.
If “is heterosexual” is determined by “sexually attracted to given gender” and sexual attraction to genders is mostly controlled by the sexual normativity of a society (is this the case? I believe so but I notice I have no evidence) then there is less of a difference between the two than you’d think.
Basically I distinguish “capable of experiencing sexual feelings towards” from “will ever actually have an experience with”, here. It’s like saying that “I’ll, like, never fall in love with a black man” (due to the demographics of my current location) versus “I never could fall in love with a black man”. It seems to me that the logical extension of these principles is that people may be capable of sexual feelings differing from the sexual norms of their society, to a greater extent than deviation already present, but do not articulate, understand, acknowledge, or have opportunity to experience these feelings. (There has to be a more sophisticated way to phrase this than “almost everyone is secretly a little bisexual”, because that of course dramatically oversimplifies the matter and gives the wrong mouthfeel, but.)
I guess “secretly a little bisexual, but due to society’s constraints will never consider or pursue a same-sex relationship” strikes me as heterosexual, not bisexual.
Sexuality is one of those areas where people want an abstract ‘core’ that is held separate and above environmental factors. For example a person may like to believe “I am the kind of person who could fall in love with a black man” and feel that never having fallen in love with a black man is a fact about their environment, not about their ability to love. I was wary of the difference you elucidated being something like “I like to believe that I am the kind of person who would be sexually attracted to both genders if only society was more permitting”.
Well my comment was kinda focused on modern society. I’m not sure how things were in Ancient Greece. Would Socrates or Plato have been particularly distracted if a Greek girl in a short toga had wandered into one of their Socratic sessions?
Probably! My intuition is that your art as a rationalist is most in need when it’s hardest to exercise (HJPEV, I think, possibly also in the Sequences) and that you shouldn’t expect the world to give you the peace of mind to apply all your skill to a question. I can bench-press more weight with a proper safety bar and a spotter, but the real world doesn’t often offer safety bars and spotters so I press less weight, without the bar and spotter, and have a better estimate of my capabilities.
Would the same reasoning apply to noises, like jackhammering, people talking on their cell phones, etc?
Yes. Also to time-pressured situations like a question requiring an immediate answer, and emotionally charged situations.
I disagree, I think it’s better to practice stuff without distractions, at least at first. So for example I wouldn’t prefer to have rational club meetings at a construction site; or to have people talking on their cell phones during the meeting.
That’s unexpected. In this comparison of sex based distractions to construction sites jackhammers turn out to be analogous to breasts. I’d usually expect something different.
It’s not so much a matter of comparison as a matter of applying shokwave’s reasoning to other distractions.
He didn’t make the argument that simply having girls present is only a mild distraction. Instead, his argument is that one should accept distractions because they are present in normal life.
I know, I agree with your argument. (Without supporting sex segregated lesswrong meetups as being a remotely practical idea!)
Ah. The male-only problem is pretty much a permanent decision—it’s a Hard Problem to attract females to an all-male group. So if you had to decide between never any distractions or always distractions… I would pick distractions. Otherwise I feel training caps out too early.
Who cares? It’s like this is a ballroom dancing society. Besides, as a practical matter what I envision is occasional meetings where girls are excluded. I think it would also make sense to have girl-only meetings.
I care. I certainly care about attracting half of humanity to rationality groups more than I’d care about attracting that subset of males that would be significantly distracted in mixed-gender company.
At the start of this discussion you used the term “men-only”. But in contrast you’re consistently using the term “girl” to refer to a member of the opposite gender.
The corresponding term to “men” and “men-only” is “women” and “women-only”. If you’d used “male”, the corresponding term would be “female”. Only if you had used “boy” or “guy” could the corresponding term be “girl”.
Take care of the connotations of your word choices, especially given the content of your suggestions.
If that’s your preference, then I can’t really argue with it. In my opinion, people are too concerned about attracting girls (or women if you prefer) to meetings.
Downvoted for failure to either correct or justify the insulting connotations of your word-choices.
Why do you think that I should care more about attracting easily distracted boys to meetings, than I should care about attracting adult female rationalists to such? To make it more specific, why would I choose to discuss with you, if that meant I had to trade away the capacity to discuss with Alicorn or AnnaSalamon or NancyLebovitz?
Frankly I think that your attitude would be much more distracting to me than the presence of boobs would be.
I wish I could say the same about myself! That is admirable.
It’s just a matter of who you prefer. Anyway, I’m not going to get sidetracked in a debate over “girl” versus “woman.” If you prefer to say “boy,” I can’t control your use of language.
I do NOT so prefer it. My point is that words with bad connotations distract too, unless one fully intends said bad connotations.
Why did you engage in that type of distraction, a distraction you could easily remove without any negative repercussions I can think of?
Serious answer from someone who’s in the NYC group:
in practice, people do care. Both guys and girls are more likely to attend an event with a less skewed gender balance. Gender balance helps attendance at events where there’s socializing.
I don’t know what kinds of topics you’re imagining, but usually we don’t focus on topics that need to be single-gender. Our topics are things like clustering algorithms and prediction markets and TED talks. Nothing you really need to shoo the girls or boys out of the room for.
Not that I wouldn’t mind a Rationalist Hen Party sometime.
Is the goal simply to maximize attendance?
Not at all costs, but it is a goal.
Is the goal simply to maximize attendance?
If there comes a time when there are enough rationalists who want to go to rationalist meetups that there can simultaniously be all male, all female and mixed sex groups then that would work and even have some benefits for some members of either sex who could plausibly be slightly more comfortable. I don’t care if you also include a group for otherkin.
I approve of the ideological stand you are taking. Unfortunately evolution isn’t nearly as open minded. Of all the prevalent trends in human behavior to say “but it could just be cultural” sexual attraction is the most absurd. Evolution cares about babies, not political convenience.
Because it’s not like there’s clear evolutionary evidence for other potential reasons to have sexual attraction, right?
Actually, I came upon this post and this thread while digging around the site for posts relevant to rationalist community. Your post caught my attention while checking the comments thread.