(It may be beneficial to some people but detrimental to others; let as assume for the moment that the amount of benefit recieved, as with most activities, is not directly tied to gender).
How do you support that assumption?
If activity A is beneficial to x% of people and detrimental to (100-x)% of people, then we should expect, in a perfect world, to see x% of males and x% of females attempting activity A. In all cases, this is a 50⁄50 male:female ratio.
Again, assuming that whatever makes activity A beneficial to some people and not other people isn’t correlated with gender. But lots of psychological traits are correlated with gender, hence this seems a highly questionable assumption.
Moreover, even if the particular activity A gives equal benefits to both genders, comparative advantage may make one of them more interested in performing A than the other is.
(It may be beneficial to some people but detrimental to others; let as assume for the moment that the amount of benefit recieved, as with most activities, is not directly tied to gender).
How do you support that assumption?
That depends on the nature of activity A.
If, for example, activity A consists of posting on (and reading posts and sequences on) LessWrong, then I would support it on the basis that I cannot see any evidence that the benefits of rationality are at all correlated to gender. If activity A consists of posting on, and reading posts on, a website dedicated to (say) breastfeeding, then there is clearly a greater benefit for female readers and my assumption becomes invalid.
For most activities, however, I tend to default to this assumption unless there is a clear causal chain showing how a difference in gender changes the benefit received.
Again, assuming that whatever makes activity A beneficial to some people and not other people isn’t correlated with gender. But lots of psychological traits are correlated with gender, hence this seems a highly questionable assumption.
My immediate question is how many of those psychological traits correlated with gender are due, not to gender, but to the cultural perception of gender?
If, for example, activity A consists of posting on (and reading posts and sequences on) LessWrong, then I would support it on the basis that I cannot see any evidence that the benefits of rationality are at all correlated to gender.
And health benefits of yoga are probably not strongly correlated to gender.
Yet people engage in leisure activities generally not because of possible long-term benefits, but because they find these activivities intrinsicaly rewarding. And since different people have different preferences, the activities they find rewarding differ. Add the fact that leisure time is a limited resource, hence a tradeoff between available activities must be done, and these competing activities, and their enjoyablility differs from one person to the other.
Personal preferences correlate with gender.
My immediate question is how many of those psychological traits correlated with gender are due, not to gender, but to the cultural perception of gender?
Gender correlates to many, if not most, objectively measurable physiological traits. As for psychological traits, we know for sure that sexual hormones affect brain development during fetal stage, and brain activity during adult life. Whether each particular psychological trait correlates to gender due to a biological cause, or a cultural one, or a combination of both, is a matter of research.
But I don’t think the nature vs nurture question really matters here: different people have different preferences, whatever the cause, and I don’t see why we should try to engineer them to achieve some arbitrary ideal.
And health benefits of yoga are probably not strongly correlated to gender.
This is why it surprises me that there is a gender imbalance in people going to yoga classes.
Yet people engage in leisure activities generally not because of possible long-term benefits, but because they find these activivities intrinsicaly rewarding. And since different people have different preferences, the activities they find rewarding differ.
Add the fact that leisure time is a limited resource, hence a tradeoff between available activities must be done, and these competing activities, and their enjoyablility differs from one person to the other.
Personal preferences correlate with gender.
Here, again, I think that a large part of the difference between personal preferences with gender is more cultural than biological. Consider, for example; culturally, over a large part of the world, it is considered acceptable for a woman to wear a skirt, but frowned on for a man. As a result, few men wear skirts; if you were to pick a random man and ask for his opinion on wearing a skirt, it is likely that he would not wish to do so. However, if one considers a slightly different culture for a little (for example, the Scottish kilt), one finds a similar garment being worn by many men. So a person’s preferences are affected by culture.
But I don’t think the nature vs nurture question really matters here: different people have different preferences, whatever the cause, and I don’t see why we should try to engineer them to achieve some arbitrary ideal.
I don’t see it so much as reaching an arbitrary ideal; I see it more as avoiding a known failure mode.
I have noticed that, throughout history, there have been cases where people were divided into separate groups; whether by race, gender, religion, or other means. In most of those cases, one group managed to achieve some measure of power over all the other groups; and then used that measure of power to oppress all the other groups, whether overtly or not.
This leads to all sorts of problems.
One means of maintaining such a division, is by creating a further, artificial divide, and using that to widen the gap between the groups. For example, if significantly more men than women own land in a given society, then restricting the ability to vote to landowners will tend to exacerbate any official pro-male bias. (This works the other way around, as well).
Therefore, when I see a major statistical imbalance for no adequately explained reason (such as the noted gender bias on LessWrong, or the imbalance in yoga classes) I find it a cause for slight concern; enough to at least justify trying to find and explain the reason for the imbalance.
Consider, for example; culturally, over a large part of the world, it is considered acceptable for a woman to wear a skirt, but frowned on for a man. As a result, few men wear skirts; if you were to pick a random man and ask for his opinion on wearing a skirt, it is likely that he would not wish to do so. However, if one considers a slightly different culture for a little (for example, the Scottish kilt), one finds a similar garment being worn by many men. So a person’s preferences are affected by culture.
So, should we campaign to increase the number of men who wear skirts and the number of women who wear traditional Scottish kilts? Or the number of non-Scottish people who wear kilts? Or the number of Scottish people who wear pants? I don’t know, what is the proper PC ideal here?
One means of maintaining such a division, is by creating a further, artificial divide, and using that to widen the gap between the groups. For example, if significantly more men than women own land in a given society, then restricting the ability to vote to landowners will tend to exacerbate any official pro-male bias. (This works the other way around, as well).
I don’t think anybody proposed a restriction of voting rights based on the partecipation to LessWrong or yoga classes, thus this seems to be a slippery slope argument.
Please don’t take this personally, but trying to “re-educate” people to change their preferences in order to socially engineer an utopian society, is the hallmark of totalitarianism. I think that, as long as people get along peacefully, it’s better to recognize, acknowledge and respect diversity.
How do you support that assumption?
Again, assuming that whatever makes activity A beneficial to some people and not other people isn’t correlated with gender. But lots of psychological traits are correlated with gender, hence this seems a highly questionable assumption.
Moreover, even if the particular activity A gives equal benefits to both genders, comparative advantage may make one of them more interested in performing A than the other is.
That depends on the nature of activity A.
If, for example, activity A consists of posting on (and reading posts and sequences on) LessWrong, then I would support it on the basis that I cannot see any evidence that the benefits of rationality are at all correlated to gender. If activity A consists of posting on, and reading posts on, a website dedicated to (say) breastfeeding, then there is clearly a greater benefit for female readers and my assumption becomes invalid.
For most activities, however, I tend to default to this assumption unless there is a clear causal chain showing how a difference in gender changes the benefit received.
My immediate question is how many of those psychological traits correlated with gender are due, not to gender, but to the cultural perception of gender?
And health benefits of yoga are probably not strongly correlated to gender.
Yet people engage in leisure activities generally not because of possible long-term benefits, but because they find these activivities intrinsicaly rewarding. And since different people have different preferences, the activities they find rewarding differ.
Add the fact that leisure time is a limited resource, hence a tradeoff between available activities must be done, and these competing activities, and their enjoyablility differs from one person to the other.
Personal preferences correlate with gender.
Gender correlates to many, if not most, objectively measurable physiological traits.
As for psychological traits, we know for sure that sexual hormones affect brain development during fetal stage, and brain activity during adult life.
Whether each particular psychological trait correlates to gender due to a biological cause, or a cultural one, or a combination of both, is a matter of research.
But I don’t think the nature vs nurture question really matters here: different people have different preferences, whatever the cause, and I don’t see why we should try to engineer them to achieve some arbitrary ideal.
This is why it surprises me that there is a gender imbalance in people going to yoga classes.
Here, again, I think that a large part of the difference between personal preferences with gender is more cultural than biological. Consider, for example; culturally, over a large part of the world, it is considered acceptable for a woman to wear a skirt, but frowned on for a man. As a result, few men wear skirts; if you were to pick a random man and ask for his opinion on wearing a skirt, it is likely that he would not wish to do so. However, if one considers a slightly different culture for a little (for example, the Scottish kilt), one finds a similar garment being worn by many men. So a person’s preferences are affected by culture.
I don’t see it so much as reaching an arbitrary ideal; I see it more as avoiding a known failure mode.
I have noticed that, throughout history, there have been cases where people were divided into separate groups; whether by race, gender, religion, or other means. In most of those cases, one group managed to achieve some measure of power over all the other groups; and then used that measure of power to oppress all the other groups, whether overtly or not.
This leads to all sorts of problems.
One means of maintaining such a division, is by creating a further, artificial divide, and using that to widen the gap between the groups. For example, if significantly more men than women own land in a given society, then restricting the ability to vote to landowners will tend to exacerbate any official pro-male bias. (This works the other way around, as well).
Therefore, when I see a major statistical imbalance for no adequately explained reason (such as the noted gender bias on LessWrong, or the imbalance in yoga classes) I find it a cause for slight concern; enough to at least justify trying to find and explain the reason for the imbalance.
So, should we campaign to increase the number of men who wear skirts and the number of women who wear traditional Scottish kilts? Or the number of non-Scottish people who wear kilts? Or the number of Scottish people who wear pants? I don’t know, what is the proper PC ideal here?
I don’t think anybody proposed a restriction of voting rights based on the partecipation to LessWrong or yoga classes, thus this seems to be a slippery slope argument.
Please don’t take this personally, but trying to “re-educate” people to change their preferences in order to socially engineer an utopian society, is the hallmark of totalitarianism.
I think that, as long as people get along peacefully, it’s better to recognize, acknowledge and respect diversity.