“but when I asked for metrics to evaluate a presidency, few people actually provided any—most started debating the validity of metrics, and one subthread went off to discuss the appropriateness of the term “gender equality”.
Pretend doctors are attempting to come up with a metric for how well patients are who have a certain disease. Wouldn’t the first step be to discuss whether the classification of the disease is correct and then to discuss what does it mean to measure progress with this disease? Your post for measuring how Trump is doing wasn’t important in and of itself for improving the art of rationality, but it was useful in a meta way of providing an example of how you can measure progress.
And just in case you think I was being deliberately silly in my response to your Trump post, I teach economics at a women’s college and when I discuss gender inequality in my microeconomics class I bring up some of the points I was trying to make with my response to your post.
You in particular did provide metrics, so I am not complaining! Although, to be perfectly honest, I do think your delivery is sort of passive aggressive or disingenuous… you know that nearly everyone, when discussing gender inequality, use the term to mean that women are disadvantaged. You provide metrics to evaluate improvement in areas where men are disadvantaged—i.e. your underlying assumption/hypothesis is the opposite of everyone else, but you don’t acknowledge it.
And I am not saying that I agree with that majority view. All I am saying is that since you know that, to sort of pretend that it’s not the case is a bit strange.
Pretend doctors are attempting to come up with a metric for how well patients are who have a certain disease. Wouldn’t the first step be to discuss whether the classification of the disease is correct and then to discuss what does it mean to measure progress with this disease? Your post for measuring how Trump is doing wasn’t important in and of itself for improving the art of rationality, but it was useful in a meta way of providing an example of how you can measure progress.
And just in case you think I was being deliberately silly in my response to your Trump post, I teach economics at a women’s college and when I discuss gender inequality in my microeconomics class I bring up some of the points I was trying to make with my response to your post.
My condolences.
My condolences.
You in particular did provide metrics, so I am not complaining! Although, to be perfectly honest, I do think your delivery is sort of passive aggressive or disingenuous… you know that nearly everyone, when discussing gender inequality, use the term to mean that women are disadvantaged. You provide metrics to evaluate improvement in areas where men are disadvantaged—i.e. your underlying assumption/hypothesis is the opposite of everyone else, but you don’t acknowledge it.
Not on LessWrong, but in general yes. But this is in part because most people assume that on almost all important metrics women are disadvantaged.
And I am not saying that I agree with that majority view. All I am saying is that since you know that, to sort of pretend that it’s not the case is a bit strange.