As a general note for the discussion: Given the current incentive landscape in the parts of society most EAs are part of, I expect opposition to this post to be strongly underrepresented in the comment section.
As a datapoint, I have many disagreements with this article, but based on negative experiences with similar discussions, I do not want to participate in a longer discussion around it. I don’t think there is an easy fix for this, but it seems reasonable for people reading the comments to be aware that they might be getting a very selective set of opinions.
So as a general principle, it’s true that discussion of an issue filters out (underrepresents) people who find or have found the discussion itself unpleasant*. In this particular case I think that somewhat cuts both ways, since these discussions as they take place in wider society often aren’t very pleasant in general, for either side. See this comic.
To put it more plainly, I could easily name a lot of people who will strongly agree with this post but won’t comment for fear of criticism and/or backlash. Like you I don’t think there is an easy fix for this.
*Ironically, this is part of what Kelly is driving at when she says that championing free speech can sometimes inhibit it.
I would agree that the comments will likely be from a small subset of real opinions because this topic can be quite emotionally charged. From a look at the comments landscape right now -
in particular, the number of posts that seem to question the existence of sexism—I think it’s plausible that a woman who had experienced sexism in EA would not be incentivized to comment.
As a general note for the discussion: Given the current incentive landscape in the parts of society most EAs are part of, I expect opposition to this post to be strongly underrepresented in the comment section.
As a datapoint, I have many disagreements with this article, but based on negative experiences with similar discussions, I do not want to participate in a longer discussion around it. I don’t think there is an easy fix for this, but it seems reasonable for people reading the comments to be aware that they might be getting a very selective set of opinions.
So as a general principle, it’s true that discussion of an issue filters out (underrepresents) people who find or have found the discussion itself unpleasant*. In this particular case I think that somewhat cuts both ways, since these discussions as they take place in wider society often aren’t very pleasant in general, for either side. See this comic.
To put it more plainly, I could easily name a lot of people who will strongly agree with this post but won’t comment for fear of criticism and/or backlash. Like you I don’t think there is an easy fix for this.
*Ironically, this is part of what Kelly is driving at when she says that championing free speech can sometimes inhibit it.
I would agree that the comments will likely be from a small subset of real opinions because this topic can be quite emotionally charged. From a look at the comments landscape right now - in particular, the number of posts that seem to question the existence of sexism—I think it’s plausible that a woman who had experienced sexism in EA would not be incentivized to comment.