I think this is true and that saying it is useful.
Though when one is saying that, it’s probably worth also noting that a majority of EAs are male (and also a majority are white and a majority are from WEIRD societies),[1] which could increase the risk of implicit or explicit biases towards male (or white or WEIRD) authors. (I think being male, white, etc. is neither necessary nor sufficient for being biased towards reading things by males, white people, etc., but it does seem likely to raise the risk somewhat.)
I don’t think that implicit or explicit bias is what caused the list of authors I’ve read EA-relevant books from to be all male and mostly or all white and WEIRD. As noted elsewhere, I think the cause is primarily just that the books that are most prominent/recommended (and not just by EAs) in the areas I’m interested in have a strong tendency to be written by people from those demographics. (I’m of course not saying that it has to be that way—that could reflect sexism, racism, etc. in various parts of the talent or recommendation “pipeline”.)
But it’s hard to rule out implicit or explicit bias on either my part or the part of the EAs who I’ve gotten recommendations from, so it seems worth noting the possibility. And that possibility means it’s at least possible that something like “making a mild effort to fulfil an imaginary quota” may push against a bias in the opposite direction and thereby land us in something that’s more like an unbiased meritocracy, all things considered.
I’m currently unsure how best to handle this. So my current plan is to make a mild effort to increase the demographic diversity of my reading list going forward, but primarily via being more conscious to seek out ideas of books to read from authors with other demographic characteristics, as well as sometimes using demographic diversity as something like a “tie-breaker” between books that seem like good reading choices anyway.
(And I hadn’t been thinking about any of this before Hauke’s comments, so I think they’ve been useful for me.)
So perhaps we indeed shouldn’t have “strong community norms against having book lists include only male authors”, but should have a norm of gently and non-judgementally pointing out to people when their book lists (or whatever) are very demographically non-diverse, in case they hadn’t even thought about that before? It does seem hard to strike the right balance/tone in an online, written medium, though!
[1] Of respondents to the 2019 EA Survey 2019, “71% reported their gender as male” and “87% reported that they identify as white” (source). Of course, “the EA community” can be defined in many ways, and not all of its members will have responded to that survey, but it gives an indication. And “74% of EAs in the survey currently live in the same set of 5 high-income English-speaking western countries as in 2018″ (source).
I think this is true and that saying it is useful.
Though when one is saying that, it’s probably worth also noting that a majority of EAs are male (and also a majority are white and a majority are from WEIRD societies),[1] which could increase the risk of implicit or explicit biases towards male (or white or WEIRD) authors. (I think being male, white, etc. is neither necessary nor sufficient for being biased towards reading things by males, white people, etc., but it does seem likely to raise the risk somewhat.)
I don’t think that implicit or explicit bias is what caused the list of authors I’ve read EA-relevant books from to be all male and mostly or all white and WEIRD. As noted elsewhere, I think the cause is primarily just that the books that are most prominent/recommended (and not just by EAs) in the areas I’m interested in have a strong tendency to be written by people from those demographics. (I’m of course not saying that it has to be that way—that could reflect sexism, racism, etc. in various parts of the talent or recommendation “pipeline”.)
But it’s hard to rule out implicit or explicit bias on either my part or the part of the EAs who I’ve gotten recommendations from, so it seems worth noting the possibility. And that possibility means it’s at least possible that something like “making a mild effort to fulfil an imaginary quota” may push against a bias in the opposite direction and thereby land us in something that’s more like an unbiased meritocracy, all things considered.
I’m currently unsure how best to handle this. So my current plan is to make a mild effort to increase the demographic diversity of my reading list going forward, but primarily via being more conscious to seek out ideas of books to read from authors with other demographic characteristics, as well as sometimes using demographic diversity as something like a “tie-breaker” between books that seem like good reading choices anyway.
(And I hadn’t been thinking about any of this before Hauke’s comments, so I think they’ve been useful for me.)
So perhaps we indeed shouldn’t have “strong community norms against having book lists include only male authors”, but should have a norm of gently and non-judgementally pointing out to people when their book lists (or whatever) are very demographically non-diverse, in case they hadn’t even thought about that before? It does seem hard to strike the right balance/tone in an online, written medium, though!
[1] Of respondents to the 2019 EA Survey 2019, “71% reported their gender as male” and “87% reported that they identify as white” (source). Of course, “the EA community” can be defined in many ways, and not all of its members will have responded to that survey, but it gives an indication. And “74% of EAs in the survey currently live in the same set of 5 high-income English-speaking western countries as in 2018″ (source).