I agree with the suggestions to change the picture at the top of the blog. We show rationality represented by a man, striving to ignore the seductive lure of bias, represented by monsters who have a female aspect. This can’t project an aura of welcome to female readers. I’d suggest that we seek out some image which has a woman as the central focus. Perhaps something like this one of an actress as Marie Curie, a scientist who is seeking after objective truth.
Another concrete point I’ve gleaned is that the title of the blog may be an obstacle as well. When women (and probably ethnic and cultural minorities) read “overcoming bias”, their immediate interpretation is that it’s about overcoming the bias and prejudice which has been an obstacle to their group’s success and happiness. This is a topic which members of historically oppressed groups tend to find interesting and relevant. When they learn of the rather different (although arguably overlapping) focus of the discussion here, that further leads to diminished interest.
While I don’t think we should change the URL of this blog, we could perhaps change the title as it is depicted in the graphic masthead, at the same time that the picture is changed. Maybe something like “Becoming Bayesian” or “Rational Striving”.
I believe there would be real advantages to bringing in a wider range of participants. Many studies have found that more diversity in groups improves problem-solving ability. From the majoritarian perspective, we are more likely to get bias cancellation with greater diversity. And Asch’s experiments in conformity found that people became much more accurate and honest with even a few supporters of their minority viewpoint, so adding diversity can bring quick benefits.
It would be good to get feedback from the female readers here as to whether they think these measures would help.
Although it eventually occurred to me that the gendered nature of the image was unwelcoming, it didn’t immediately put me off. But that may just be a fondness for the Pre-Raphaelites (an irrational and sexist bunch if ever there was one).
I vote against “Becoming Bayesian”, as it won’t make any sense to most people coming here for the first time. I’m still not clear on why the whole Bayes thing is so much greater than any of the other ideas on this site. For anyone to whom arithmetic doesn’t come easily, any of the explanations of Bayes’ Theorem are difficult to get through.
I agree with the suggestions to change the picture at the top of the blog. We show rationality represented by a man, striving to ignore the seductive lure of bias, represented by monsters who have a female aspect. This can’t project an aura of welcome to female readers. I’d suggest that we seek out some image which has a woman as the central focus. Perhaps something like this one of an actress as Marie Curie, a scientist who is seeking after objective truth.
Another concrete point I’ve gleaned is that the title of the blog may be an obstacle as well. When women (and probably ethnic and cultural minorities) read “overcoming bias”, their immediate interpretation is that it’s about overcoming the bias and prejudice which has been an obstacle to their group’s success and happiness. This is a topic which members of historically oppressed groups tend to find interesting and relevant. When they learn of the rather different (although arguably overlapping) focus of the discussion here, that further leads to diminished interest.
While I don’t think we should change the URL of this blog, we could perhaps change the title as it is depicted in the graphic masthead, at the same time that the picture is changed. Maybe something like “Becoming Bayesian” or “Rational Striving”.
I believe there would be real advantages to bringing in a wider range of participants. Many studies have found that more diversity in groups improves problem-solving ability. From the majoritarian perspective, we are more likely to get bias cancellation with greater diversity. And Asch’s experiments in conformity found that people became much more accurate and honest with even a few supporters of their minority viewpoint, so adding diversity can bring quick benefits.
It would be good to get feedback from the female readers here as to whether they think these measures would help.
Although it eventually occurred to me that the gendered nature of the image was unwelcoming, it didn’t immediately put me off. But that may just be a fondness for the Pre-Raphaelites (an irrational and sexist bunch if ever there was one).
I vote against “Becoming Bayesian”, as it won’t make any sense to most people coming here for the first time. I’m still not clear on why the whole Bayes thing is so much greater than any of the other ideas on this site. For anyone to whom arithmetic doesn’t come easily, any of the explanations of Bayes’ Theorem are difficult to get through.