You can expect that attractive people to get more attention from those attracted to them, including sexual attention, anywhere you go, including LW meetings.
I agree that sneering comments about those with low status, particularly status based on physical health and beauty, are unnecessary and harmful.
On male/female generalizations, just as a matter of language generalizations are generally taken as statistical generalizations, not as statements holding true for absolutely every member of the group.
I realize that’s probably not so helpful, since there is no discernible difference between 51% and 99.999%. Wouldn’t it be helpful if people tossed out a number to indicate an estimated sort rate of a generalization? Men are more X than women. Some kind of mutual relative entropy measure on their ranks? Area of the receiver operator curve? Jefrey’s divergence! But I digress.
you don’t convert people to rationality by talking about such emotive topics.
I don’t think you hold the interest of people interested in rationality by saying “we like rationality, but we’re not rational enough to discuss particular topics that happen to be ones you’re likely to find important, so we taboo those topics”.
I strongly agree that people who talk about differences between men and women should say something about how large the difference is and the amount of overlap. I would also welcome some mention of how much evidence they have.
On Submitter A
You can expect that attractive people to get more attention from those attracted to them, including sexual attention, anywhere you go, including LW meetings.
I agree that sneering comments about those with low status, particularly status based on physical health and beauty, are unnecessary and harmful.
On male/female generalizations, just as a matter of language generalizations are generally taken as statistical generalizations, not as statements holding true for absolutely every member of the group.
I realize that’s probably not so helpful, since there is no discernible difference between 51% and 99.999%. Wouldn’t it be helpful if people tossed out a number to indicate an estimated sort rate of a generalization? Men are more X than women. Some kind of mutual relative entropy measure on their ranks? Area of the receiver operator curve? Jefrey’s divergence! But I digress.
I don’t think you hold the interest of people interested in rationality by saying “we like rationality, but we’re not rational enough to discuss particular topics that happen to be ones you’re likely to find important, so we taboo those topics”.
I strongly agree that people who talk about differences between men and women should say something about how large the difference is and the amount of overlap. I would also welcome some mention of how much evidence they have.