Given the gender ratio in EA and rationality, it would be surprising if women in EA/rationality didn’t experience more harassment than women in other social settings with more even gender ratios.
Consider a simplified case: suppose 1% of guys harass women and EA/rationality events are 10% women. Then in a group of 1000 EAs/rationalists there would be 9 harassers targeting 100 women. But if the gender ratio was even, then there would be 5 harassers targeting 500 women. So the probability of each woman being targeted by a harasser is lower in a group with more even gender ratio. For it to be the case that women in EA/rationality experience the same amount of harassment as women in other social settings the men in EA/rationality would need to be less likely to harass women than the average man in other social settings.
It is also possible that the average man in EA/rationality is more likely to harass women than the average man in other social settings. I can think of some reasons for this (being socially clumsy, open to breaking social norms etc) and some against (being too shy to make advances, aspiring to high moral standards in EA etc).
I agree it wouldn’t exactly be surprising by default but both communities are very high conscientiousness and EA specifically is meant to be a community of altruists? I know you sort of mentioned that, but honestly I think it should count for quite a lot if we are just doing conjecture here?
And again the two communities (EA and rationality) are getting tied together here? On gender ratio: EA has a 1:2 gender ratio which is honestly not that horrible for a community that grew out tech, philosophy, and econ. Obviously I want to improve it very very much but I kinda wish people would stop saying it is so incredibly uneven in such a way that it is implying that we can expect sexual misconduct to be egregious under the surface? 1:2 is about the gender ratio of the climbing gym I attend and I don’t expect sexual misconduct to be egregious under the surface there? (but I do expect there to be some instances women have reported and I would expect that even if it were 1:1) Now compare that 1:2 ratio to the 1:9 gender ratio at best in rationality, well yeah that’s probably gonna feel bad as a woman within rationality: even if rationalist conscientiousness bore out so that rat men do 1⁄3 the misconduct of normies, the rate of misconduct per woman would still be 3x! It wouldn’t be a surprise if some extra stuff from rationality has spilled over to EA, association-wise.
I don’t mean to tear apart your point but as I’ve said elsewhere… This type of thinking is conjecture and I worry about what this type of public conjecture leads lurkers to assume about the community when such conjecture is repeated place after place. It would be better to wait for data
Given the gender ratio in EA and rationality, it would be surprising if women in EA/rationality didn’t experience more harassment than women in other social settings with more even gender ratios.
Consider a simplified case: suppose 1% of guys harass women and EA/rationality events are 10% women. Then in a group of 1000 EAs/rationalists there would be 9 harassers targeting 100 women. But if the gender ratio was even, then there would be 5 harassers targeting 500 women. So the probability of each woman being targeted by a harasser is lower in a group with more even gender ratio. For it to be the case that women in EA/rationality experience the same amount of harassment as women in other social settings the men in EA/rationality would need to be less likely to harass women than the average man in other social settings.
It is also possible that the average man in EA/rationality is more likely to harass women than the average man in other social settings. I can think of some reasons for this (being socially clumsy, open to breaking social norms etc) and some against (being too shy to make advances, aspiring to high moral standards in EA etc).
(I also posted this comment on LessWrong.)
I agree it wouldn’t exactly be surprising by default but both communities are very high conscientiousness and EA specifically is meant to be a community of altruists? I know you sort of mentioned that, but honestly I think it should count for quite a lot if we are just doing conjecture here?
And again the two communities (EA and rationality) are getting tied together here? On gender ratio: EA has a 1:2 gender ratio which is honestly not that horrible for a community that grew out tech, philosophy, and econ. Obviously I want to improve it very very much but I kinda wish people would stop saying it is so incredibly uneven in such a way that it is implying that we can expect sexual misconduct to be egregious under the surface? 1:2 is about the gender ratio of the climbing gym I attend and I don’t expect sexual misconduct to be egregious under the surface there? (but I do expect there to be some instances women have reported and I would expect that even if it were 1:1) Now compare that 1:2 ratio to the 1:9 gender ratio at best in rationality, well yeah that’s probably gonna feel bad as a woman within rationality: even if rationalist conscientiousness bore out so that rat men do 1⁄3 the misconduct of normies, the rate of misconduct per woman would still be 3x! It wouldn’t be a surprise if some extra stuff from rationality has spilled over to EA, association-wise.
I don’t mean to tear apart your point but as I’ve said elsewhere… This type of thinking is conjecture and I worry about what this type of public conjecture leads lurkers to assume about the community when such conjecture is repeated place after place. It would be better to wait for data
Yes, this kind of ‘idle conjecture’ seems epistemically risky. It’s too easy to invent reasons that point in any particular direction.