The 2011 survey has us at only 8% female. That may be progress, but for me, it still isn’t good enough. I am going to come right out and say that I WANT a more balanced gender representation on LW and in rationalism in general.
When it comes to recruiting there are two completely separate issues: 1) Getting People in The Door, and 2) Keeping Them.
Right now the discussion seems focused on Getting Females in The Door, so that is what I will focus on here.
How do people join this community?
MileyCyrus mentions that OB/LW draws its readers from crowds that tend to be male-dominated. I think this is true, but it is not something that we can change within a generation:
LW draws its from the computer science, transhumanist, etc, communities. These communities are mainly male. Therefore LW will end up mainly male.
So looking at this, if we want to have LW more gender-balanced, we either have to have more females in the computer/transhumanist/etc communities, or we have to draw from a more gender-balanced crowd. None of these seem like feasible strategies, so we have to ask:
What is another way to Get People In The Door?
Another way people join communities is when they are “converted” by their friends. I am going to generalize here, and say that most male LWers tend to hang out with other males (because they tend toward the aforementioned computer/transhumanist/etc male-dominated communities). So when male LWers tell their friends about LW, they are probably telling other males.
If we want them to tell FEMALES about LW, there is a pretty high probability that the one female they spend the most time with is their SO, and so that will be the one female our generic male LWer is most likely to tell.
So....at this point in our discussion, we have discussed two ways that females will happen to discover LW. The first is if they are one of the few female computer/transhumanist/etc types, and accidentally stumble onto this site. This is unlikely to result in many females, due to the gender-imbalance of those communities we are drawing from.
The second option is if a male LWer tells his SO about it. This seems more likely to succeed. I would guess that male LWers have a tendency to date more rational-minded females in the first place (The same way that I have a tendency to date more rational-minded males).
For what it’s worth, my girlfriend is a lurker and found out about the site from me. Ironically, I found out about HPMOR from a female (platonic) friend of mine. Granted, that female is a Reddit editor (where she found it), so it’s not exactly outside our typical demographic.
The second option is if a male LWer tells his SO about it. This seems more likely to succeed. I would guess that male LWers have a tendency to date more rational-minded females in the first place (The same way that I have a tendency to date more rational-minded males).
Clearly the optimal method for this is to train as many LessWrong users in the PUA arts as possible, so that they successfully acquire as many female partners as possible in order to convert them to polyamory and rationality.
That might be optimal if the goal is “attract any and all women.” However, a large amount of what PUA advice focuses on is exploiting the irrationalities of certain groups of women. The women most susceptible to PUA techniques are probably not the most likely to become rationalists.
Highly intelligent women are if anything more susceptible to verbal game (the left half of the bell curve basically goes for caveman game). Granted that dosen’t filter for personality type or rationality.
In any case I have to take issue with the tone here:
However, a large amount of what PUA advice focuses on is exploiting the irrationalities of certain groups of women.
Am I exploited by curvy figures and symmetric faces too?
These mostly aren’t irrationalities. These are preferences. Sure you might argue, that a PUA is somehow tricking a person when he/she uses his skill to create behaviour A that is usually associated with B. Because clearly even though, people with B often get little attention in absence of A, it must be what they really want. But why are we so quick to assume this is so?Especially when it comes to sexuality. If nature found A good enough a proxy, even if B was really what gave fitness, why would it bother? If evolution did bother with that kind of optimization, contraception probably wouldn’t have had the impact it has.
Naturally our society finds some such preferences objectionable or shallow. But we admit they are such in men, without any great qualms. We roll our eyes, but we don’t judge (too much) or consider men bad people. Yet with women, such a proposal stirs controversy. Is this because for women personality seems to matter more in sexual attractiveness, and we perceive personality to be a morally defining characteristic? Again, why? Dark triad traits are as much a biological trait as breast size is.
BTW Why must we constantly implicitly define female preferred sexual behaviour as moral and male preferred sexual behaviour as immoral?
The women most susceptible to PUA techniques are probably not the most likely to become rationalists.
I don’t think there is any evidence at all for this. People who are routinely bringing this throwaway line up, should either present it or shut up. The only thing remotely sensible that could go in this direction is that perhaps women on LW (high IQ correlates with androgynous traits) are more androgynous (male if you want to put it that way) personality wise. But even then we have no real data on any such traits in female LW users!
Am I exploited by curvy figures and symmetric faces too?
You probably could be influenced irrationally by them, yes. To further clarify, you would probably more readily accept the view of a curvy, symmetrical woman without further evidence than that of a flat, asymmetric one. If this is a primary influence, you’re probably not the best target for rationality training.
But even then we have no real data on any such traits in female LW users!
It seems like we’re disagreeing about something testable (specifically, whether susceptibility to PUA-style techniques correlates negatively with rationality). I am not particularly well-versed in all things PUA, but I have an inkling that some sort of rationality test could be incorporated in a routine, and we could find out that way.
You probably could be influenced irrationally by them, yes. To further clarify, you would probably more readily accept the view of a curvy, symmetrical woman without further evidence than that of a flat, asymmetric one. If this is a primary influence, you’re probably not the best target for rationality training.
You are missing the point. Ceteris paribus, I end up enjoying relationships both long term and short term with women that have curvy figures and symmetrical faces more than with those who don’t.
I might end up behaving disproportionately to the real strength of this signal, but before singling this out as a great irrationality that it is supposedly unethical to “exploit” me by using to plan your behaviour towards me, ask yourself if this is that much big a deal. Consider that we often overestimate the strength of signals like education, taste in music, intelligence, religious convictions, political stances, nationality or hair colour when it comes to picking mates.
Also if people genuinely crave X, but overestimate their utility gained from X, why in the world is it unethical to still optimize for X? I mean people are better of than if I hadn’t, they just aren’t as much better off as they thought they would be.
That implies symmetry and curvaceousness of the persuader are secondary in importance in terms of the views you hold.
When did I ever say it was unethical? I have no ethical problem with the technique, but I don’t think that’s a particularly effective way to bring rational women into the LessWrong community.
When did I ever say it was unethical? I have no ethical problem with the technique, but I don’t think that’s a particularly effective way to bring rational women into the LessWrong community.
You are right you didn’t say it. But you did use the word “exploit” and that does carry such connotations.
perhaps women on LW (high IQ correlates with androgynous traits) are more androgynous (male if you want to put it that way) personality wise
The rest of your comment seems to suggest the word you want is masculine and not androgynous perhaps? Androgynous means having both masculine and feminine characteristics.
Anyway, do you have any studies which show the correlation of high IQ with masculine (or androgynous, if you do actually mean that) traits? Cursory googling didn’t turn up much, but yes, I wasn’t trying too hard.
Anyway, do you have any studies which show the correlation of high IQ with masculine (or androgynous, if you do actually mean that) traits?
I am not talking about IQ in that post. I said personality. In any case high IQ is not the defining characteristic of LessWrong posters, though I admit probably some think it is. Above average IQ however for all intents and purposes basically is a prerequisite. Thought obviously women probably have less variance in IQ scores than men, I don’t think this is the limiting factor for the site.
Was only responding to this bit from your original post: “high IQ correlates with androgynous traits”, without making any assumption of either the average IQ or the personality traits of LWers.
The women most susceptible to PUA techniques are probably not the most likely to become rationalists.
Also LOL echoes of bad girls vs. good girls scrip. What’s next slut shaming the girls who fall for “PUA tricks”? I don’t think we ever slut shame guys who go for hot young golddigers as much as we do women who go for supposedly “bad guys”. Why do we pick so much on people seeking sexual fulfilment?
The 2011 survey has us at only 8% female. That may be progress, but for me, it still isn’t good enough. I am going to come right out and say that I WANT a more balanced gender representation on LW and in rationalism in general.
When it comes to recruiting there are two completely separate issues: 1) Getting People in The Door, and 2) Keeping Them.
Right now the discussion seems focused on Getting Females in The Door, so that is what I will focus on here.
How do people join this community?
MileyCyrus mentions that OB/LW draws its readers from crowds that tend to be male-dominated. I think this is true, but it is not something that we can change within a generation:
LW draws its from the computer science, transhumanist, etc, communities.
These communities are mainly male.
Therefore LW will end up mainly male.
So looking at this, if we want to have LW more gender-balanced, we either have to have more females in the computer/transhumanist/etc communities, or we have to draw from a more gender-balanced crowd. None of these seem like feasible strategies, so we have to ask:
What is another way to Get People In The Door?
Another way people join communities is when they are “converted” by their friends. I am going to generalize here, and say that most male LWers tend to hang out with other males (because they tend toward the aforementioned computer/transhumanist/etc male-dominated communities). So when male LWers tell their friends about LW, they are probably telling other males.
If we want them to tell FEMALES about LW, there is a pretty high probability that the one female they spend the most time with is their SO, and so that will be the one female our generic male LWer is most likely to tell.
So....at this point in our discussion, we have discussed two ways that females will happen to discover LW. The first is if they are one of the few female computer/transhumanist/etc types, and accidentally stumble onto this site. This is unlikely to result in many females, due to the gender-imbalance of those communities we are drawing from.
The second option is if a male LWer tells his SO about it. This seems more likely to succeed. I would guess that male LWers have a tendency to date more rational-minded females in the first place (The same way that I have a tendency to date more rational-minded males).
For what it’s worth, my girlfriend is a lurker and found out about the site from me. Ironically, I found out about HPMOR from a female (platonic) friend of mine. Granted, that female is a Reddit editor (where she found it), so it’s not exactly outside our typical demographic.
Clearly the optimal method for this is to train as many LessWrong users in the PUA arts as possible, so that they successfully acquire as many female partners as possible in order to convert them to polyamory and rationality.
That might be optimal if the goal is “attract any and all women.” However, a large amount of what PUA advice focuses on is exploiting the irrationalities of certain groups of women. The women most susceptible to PUA techniques are probably not the most likely to become rationalists.
Highly intelligent women are if anything more susceptible to verbal game (the left half of the bell curve basically goes for caveman game). Granted that dosen’t filter for personality type or rationality.
In any case I have to take issue with the tone here:
Am I exploited by curvy figures and symmetric faces too?
These mostly aren’t irrationalities. These are preferences. Sure you might argue, that a PUA is somehow tricking a person when he/she uses his skill to create behaviour A that is usually associated with B. Because clearly even though, people with B often get little attention in absence of A, it must be what they really want. But why are we so quick to assume this is so? Especially when it comes to sexuality. If nature found A good enough a proxy, even if B was really what gave fitness, why would it bother? If evolution did bother with that kind of optimization, contraception probably wouldn’t have had the impact it has.
Naturally our society finds some such preferences objectionable or shallow. But we admit they are such in men, without any great qualms. We roll our eyes, but we don’t judge (too much) or consider men bad people. Yet with women, such a proposal stirs controversy. Is this because for women personality seems to matter more in sexual attractiveness, and we perceive personality to be a morally defining characteristic? Again, why? Dark triad traits are as much a biological trait as breast size is.
BTW Why must we constantly implicitly define female preferred sexual behaviour as moral and male preferred sexual behaviour as immoral?
I don’t think there is any evidence at all for this. People who are routinely bringing this throwaway line up, should either present it or shut up. The only thing remotely sensible that could go in this direction is that perhaps women on LW (high IQ correlates with androgynous traits) are more androgynous (male if you want to put it that way) personality wise. But even then we have no real data on any such traits in female LW users!
You probably could be influenced irrationally by them, yes. To further clarify, you would probably more readily accept the view of a curvy, symmetrical woman without further evidence than that of a flat, asymmetric one. If this is a primary influence, you’re probably not the best target for rationality training.
It seems like we’re disagreeing about something testable (specifically, whether susceptibility to PUA-style techniques correlates negatively with rationality). I am not particularly well-versed in all things PUA, but I have an inkling that some sort of rationality test could be incorporated in a routine, and we could find out that way.
You are missing the point. Ceteris paribus, I end up enjoying relationships both long term and short term with women that have curvy figures and symmetrical faces more than with those who don’t.
I might end up behaving disproportionately to the real strength of this signal, but before singling this out as a great irrationality that it is supposedly unethical to “exploit” me by using to plan your behaviour towards me, ask yourself if this is that much big a deal. Consider that we often overestimate the strength of signals like education, taste in music, intelligence, religious convictions, political stances, nationality or hair colour when it comes to picking mates.
Also if people genuinely crave X, but overestimate their utility gained from X, why in the world is it unethical to still optimize for X? I mean people are better of than if I hadn’t, they just aren’t as much better off as they thought they would be.
That implies symmetry and curvaceousness of the persuader are secondary in importance in terms of the views you hold.
When did I ever say it was unethical? I have no ethical problem with the technique, but I don’t think that’s a particularly effective way to bring rational women into the LessWrong community.
You are right you didn’t say it. But you did use the word “exploit” and that does carry such connotations.
The rest of your comment seems to suggest the word you want is masculine and not androgynous perhaps? Androgynous means having both masculine and feminine characteristics.
Anyway, do you have any studies which show the correlation of high IQ with masculine (or androgynous, if you do actually mean that) traits? Cursory googling didn’t turn up much, but yes, I wasn’t trying too hard.
Females with male characteristics are more androgynous. Just as males with female characteristics are.
I am not talking about IQ in that post. I said personality. In any case high IQ is not the defining characteristic of LessWrong posters, though I admit probably some think it is. Above average IQ however for all intents and purposes basically is a prerequisite. Thought obviously women probably have less variance in IQ scores than men, I don’t think this is the limiting factor for the site.
Was only responding to this bit from your original post: “high IQ correlates with androgynous traits”, without making any assumption of either the average IQ or the personality traits of LWers.
Ah I see! What I mean by that is that both high IQ males and females tend to be more androgynous. .
Also LOL echoes of bad girls vs. good girls scrip. What’s next slut shaming the girls who fall for “PUA tricks”? I don’t think we ever slut shame guys who go for hot young golddigers as much as we do women who go for supposedly “bad guys”. Why do we pick so much on people seeking sexual fulfilment?