Iām not super familiar with the idea, but I think the idea here is that many people (unconsciously or otherwise) think that women are easier to interrupt, dismiss, or talk over. Itās the bias thatās sexist, not the act itself.
You could make that claim, but then it should be evidenced. Personally I have noticed my tendency (which I try to suppress!) is more readily to interrupt/ādismiss people who are shorter than me, which seems to accord with the data.
I think the evidence is there to the same extent as your height evidence:
We find a number of significant differences, including the fact that women are more often interrupted overall and that men interrupt more often women than other men, in particular using speech overlap to grab the floor (Eecke & FernĆ”ndez, 2016 āOn the Influence of Gender on Interruptions in Multiparty Dialogueā)
It also matches my personal experience.
I think thereās a natural reason to feel defensive when faced with this since it carries the label āsexistā which kinda takes a wide range of badness of behavior under one label, but I think this is frequently an unconscious bias people have so I donāt mean it to suggest you or others are bad people, but just that we can do better.
That evidence wouldnāt explain why (or show that) EAs would be more sexist. The behaviour James Ozden describes sounds consistent with, for example, EA containing a higher proportion of aspy types who, generally lacking some awareness of social norms, are more inclined to talk over everyone.
You seem to be really hung up on the term āsexistā and I think I get that. I think itās very clear there is unintentional and unconscious sexism in the EA movement, like there is everywhere else. Iām not calling anyone bad. But I am going to throw a āIsolated Demand For Rigor, Five Yard Penaltyā at your argument here.
Of course thereās sexism (unconscious and otherwise) in the EA movement.
But with the very strong caveat that I believe citing logical fallacies can lead to nothing more productive than arguments over whether the fallacy was correctly cited, I submit that this whole thread is a discussion about whether sexism is more than averagely prevalent in EA (for healthy reference classes), and, therefore whether EAs should put more resources into the problem.
In that context, I would argue the latter is the isolated demand for rigour, for which Iām making an in-context demand for justification.
[ETA: for the record I weakly agree that we should put more resources into the problem. I just donāt want us to sabotage our epistemics while making that determination]
Iām sorry Iām very confused what we are supposed to be discussing. I thought earlier you were arguing that thereās no sexism in EA because people who are interrupting women could just be interrupting people with lower height or just interrupting everyone equally. I was arguing against that.
Iām personally not saying āEA is more sexist than relevant reference classesā. I donāt think I believe that, or it would depend a lot on the reference classā¦ and there appears to be notable within-EA variation.
I probably am saying āwe should put more resources into figuring out sexism in EAā, but thatās not what I thought we were talking about, and of course Iād want to think a lot more about what thatās supposed to look like, what āmoreā means, what āresourcesā means, what āfiguring out sexismā means, etc.
I certainly didnāt mean to claim that. Iāve known of multiple examples of sexism in EA. I think the comment to which I originally replied might not have been another such example, and wanted to guard against assuming it was.
Iām not super familiar with the idea, but I think the idea here is that many people (unconsciously or otherwise) think that women are easier to interrupt, dismiss, or talk over. Itās the bias thatās sexist, not the act itself.
You could make that claim, but then it should be evidenced. Personally I have noticed my tendency (which I try to suppress!) is more readily to interrupt/ādismiss people who are shorter than me, which seems to accord with the data.
I think the evidence is there to the same extent as your height evidence:
It also matches my personal experience.
I think thereās a natural reason to feel defensive when faced with this since it carries the label āsexistā which kinda takes a wide range of badness of behavior under one label, but I think this is frequently an unconscious bias people have so I donāt mean it to suggest you or others are bad people, but just that we can do better.
That evidence wouldnāt explain why (or show that) EAs would be more sexist. The behaviour James Ozden describes sounds consistent with, for example, EA containing a higher proportion of aspy types who, generally lacking some awareness of social norms, are more inclined to talk over everyone.
You seem to be really hung up on the term āsexistā and I think I get that. I think itās very clear there is unintentional and unconscious sexism in the EA movement, like there is everywhere else. Iām not calling anyone bad. But I am going to throw a āIsolated Demand For Rigor, Five Yard Penaltyā at your argument here.
Of course thereās sexism (unconscious and otherwise) in the EA movement.
But with the very strong caveat that I believe citing logical fallacies can lead to nothing more productive than arguments over whether the fallacy was correctly cited, I submit that this whole thread is a discussion about whether sexism is more than averagely prevalent in EA (for healthy reference classes), and, therefore whether EAs should put more resources into the problem.
In that context, I would argue the latter is the isolated demand for rigour, for which Iām making an in-context demand for justification.
[ETA: for the record I weakly agree that we should put more resources into the problem. I just donāt want us to sabotage our epistemics while making that determination]
Iām sorry Iām very confused what we are supposed to be discussing. I thought earlier you were arguing that thereās no sexism in EA because people who are interrupting women could just be interrupting people with lower height or just interrupting everyone equally. I was arguing against that.
Iām personally not saying āEA is more sexist than relevant reference classesā. I donāt think I believe that, or it would depend a lot on the reference classā¦ and there appears to be notable within-EA variation.
I probably am saying āwe should put more resources into figuring out sexism in EAā, but thatās not what I thought we were talking about, and of course Iād want to think a lot more about what thatās supposed to look like, what āmoreā means, what āresourcesā means, what āfiguring out sexismā means, etc.
I certainly didnāt mean to claim that. Iāve known of multiple examples of sexism in EA. I think the comment to which I originally replied might not have been another such example, and wanted to guard against assuming it was.
Lol, and now Iām wondering how much I do of that as someone over six foot/ā 185cm