Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA)

Sure I'd be willing to do it, but I'll wait first to see if enough people think it worthwhile.

I don't think it's a great idea. I don't think it was supposed to be.

Yes, quite alright! The form was solely to make sure we had enough women interested in writing that it would actually maintain anonymity. Also, I use it to send people my email, so they can get a hold of me that way, if they prefer. Any LW female can send in a submission.

Also, if you want to submit, but want to be double-blind (i.e. you don't want me personally knowing what you wrote), you can forward it to another female LWer, to send to me. (if you trust them to forward it without reading it)

"Latter" for a list of more than two is the same as "last", right? Google is unclear.

This is a gender-neutral example, but one of the best ways to forestall stress/creepiness when meeting new people was pretty well summed up by a PUA. He suggested setting up a time by which your conversation has to end when you start it. ("Oh, I want to make the next bus, but I've got five min"). One thing that is stressful about being approached by someone you don't know, especially if they seem a little off is having to simultaneously carry on a conversation and try to plan an exit. If you set up an exit when you approach and precommit ending the conversation then (unless you both are in the middle of something quite interesting) it's easier to just be present for the conversation.

When I first went vegetarian as a teenager, most other teenagers' reactions were along the lines of "Oh, that's nice" or "I love to eat animals! They're delicious! I'm going to eat a hamburger right in front of you! Ha!" A friend introduced me to her boyfriend, and my vegetarianism came up. He immediately asked, "What do you do for protein, eat a lot of peanut butter?" I remember being impressed that even though he had no interest in being vegetarian himself, he could think from my perspective and notice a practical implication of my choice without passing judgement on it.

I meet most people on the Internet or by their having swung through my house while I was in more of a group living situation, but awhile ago I visited a minicamp and met a bunch of people, some of whom I hadn't known before. I'll use Andrew Critch as an example. I'd been hearing for a while from Anna that he wanted to meet me and kept missing me. (This was relevant for two reasons: a) he was not making meeting me his life's mission or he could have done it much sooner, b) Anna seemed to like him and think we should talk). We had a conversation about miscellaneous topics ranging from the tree we were sitting under to his school stuff. I inquired about his schedule and dietary preferences so I'd know when to invite him to a dinner party. Eventually it got dark out where we were and we were being bitten by mosquitoes, so we went inside and dispersed - we both had other people to talk to.

How do you think LessWrong does at productive discussion of gender issues (when discussed) compared to other communities you have experience of that have a similar gender ratio (eg the Science Fiction community)?

I think LW mistakes "not a screaming flamewar all or most of the time" for "productive conversation." It's certainly true that LW is more civil about things. But that civility seems overrated, too -- someone with little or no stake in an issue can often discuss it with far less emotion than someone with a lot of stake in it, precisely because of that differential. That doesn't mean the former party is more likely to be objective or make the right decision; the norm just acts as a filter for certain kinds of personality, or for the ability to make your feelings and preferences sound smart. If you look at similar discussions that have been going on recently in similar spaces (LW is not alone here; the SF and atheist subcultures have been in the middle of a similar round of topical debate), things are noisier, and often a great deal more vitriolic -- but I'm not sure what's been gained here, that isn't being gained in those places. I don't think LW as a community has generated any special insights here.

This almost never happens to me. I can only think of one example, which was mostly obnoxious and only mildly creepy. I went to a party where there was only one other woman present. She was strangely warm with me and asked me lots of personal questions. When I got up, but was still well within earshot, she started asking my husband the same questions about me ("where did you two meet?") He said, "You just asked Julia those questions. You already know the answers." She said she was interested to hear the differences, but it felt like she was trying to catch us in some kind of deception. Then she drank my beer.

At a science fiction convention, there was a question about enough car space to get a party to a restaurant, and a woman kept saying that I could sit on her lap.

At a later convention, she upgraded a hug (I can't remember how consensual the hug was) to a kiss, and I threw her out of my life.

Marginally creepy but much less serious for me-- an older woman who would keep touching my hair (more dramatically curly at the time). The experience was more weird/dissociated for me than upsetting, so I didn't do anything about it. I actually didn't even think of it as possibly part of a larger social pattern until I read many accounts by black people of white people insisting on touching their hair.

The following is my personal experience only, and does not negate the feelings and opinions of those with different experiences.

I have almost never felt creeped out by a female. Even if they are overly huggy or complimenty, it tends to lack the predatory or aggressive/disrespective vibe that makes me feel creeped. Or rather, it doesn't cause in me a reaction of feeling predated. At worst, I feel mildly uncertain.

I can only think of one time when I ever felt creeped out by a woman. It was a couple years ago, so my recollection is not the best, but to the best I recall: We had only been talking for about a minute or two, when out of nowhere she says something along the lines of "So, are you interested in women?" It was ugh-y.

As a straight-leaning female myself, who's good at social cues, I do get to be more huggy and complimenty with people, without having a significant chance that I am going to creep anyone out.

I do think I might have once mildly creeped a fellow LWer though. We had recently met for rationality camp, and she made a comment that I had read as being insecure about her appearance. My reply was along the lines of "Seriously, when I first saw you I thought 'Oh wow, she is so pretty!'" and then complimented her. Later I found out that I might have misread her first comment (not certain if I actually did or not, but realized later that there was a possible alternate interpretation to what she said), which would have made me all of a sudden complimenting her looks to be a weird and creepy thing. But I'm pretty sure that IF I did misread the comment, that she realized the miscommunication, and was just too polite to say. (So in other words, her response was "Oh, she thought I meant X and is trying to make me feel better. Well I don't want to hurt her feelings by saying she misunderstood" which is significantly better than "Oh my god, why is this random person all of a sudden complimenting my looks?!?")

ETA- At the time of this incident, I actually was dating a female, which is a factor that could push the interaction from "awkward" to "creepy".

That's the only time I can recall making a "creepy" faux pas, and realizing it.

I remember being hit on by girls (we were teenagers at the time) who didn't understand boundaries - they would try to make me try women, or try to extract kisses from me. Being persistent about what they want while ignoring the fact that what I wanted was in conflict with their desires is what was creepy.

I haven't ever felt a woman was creepy. Creepy essentially translates to unwanted (perceived) sexual advances, and, now I'm going to sound super-creepy myself, but I've never /not/ wanted a woman to come on to me. Like, obviously I don't think about it all the time, but it's always a welcome surprise if it happens. I don't have any exceedingly unattractive female acquaintances though.

I would imagine this would be different if I was straight. An example of creepy female-female interaction would be the way Amy often acts towards Penny on TBBT.

Unfortunately, this one illustrates that there isn't a hard-and-fast creepy definition. I was at a party, and a man was there who had been showing social but not physical interest in me was there. I was sitting on an empty sofa and he sat down right next to me so our sides were touching, which I found creepy.

But later in the evening a higher-status and more attractive man did basically the same, and I was pleased rather than creeped out. So the creepiness of an action depends on how much I like the person who does it.

Ironically, I'm now friends with the first man (who no longer hits on me) and not with the second (who has probably forgotten I exist.)

At a subculturey party, I made friends with a girl, and when I had to leave I went to say goodbye to her and ask her for a hug. She was talking to someone else who I didn't know at all, and after I hugged her, he went for a hug too. He was too close for me to think of a way to evade him beyond the overtly dramatic "ducking and dodging", so, what the heck, it was just a hug. But then instead of just hugging me he did a weird thing where he alternated the relative position of our heads a couple times. Then he kissed me on the cheek.

I still didn't know this guy at all, so, maybe that was a weird cultural thing or something, but I said "I was not comfortable with that, you shouldn't do that". Still could have been an innocent misreading, if he'd let me go and said "sorry" that would have been the end of it, but instead he said, "Well, I'll probably never have the chance to do it again, so that works out" - which made it Decidedly Sketchy and not-OK; kissing people who don't want to be kissed is not ever a case of things working out, trying to laugh off someone's discomfort is not cool, and the fact that he said this anyway cast all of the things he'd already done that were sketchy in a retroactively worse light.

(This is by far the sketchiest thing that has ever happened to me at a subculturey meatspace event, to be fair. Next closest thing was when I had to verbally signal the end of a hug and the guy let go instantly and apologized, and that's the only other thing I can think of.)

I have never felt creeped at a LessWrong event. There are other problems arising from social awkwardness, though. Here's an example:

A fellow LWer and I were discussing a mutual LW passing acquaintance. I mentioned that I had read him as cold and aloof. He didn't really respond any time I had tried to engage with him. My friend responded that his read had been that he was a warm, but shy person. Further discussion led us to the realization that because this person was attractive, well-dressed, carried himself well, and elsewise high-status, I was interpreting certain responses (monosyllabic answers, not really looking at me, or engaging with me, etc) differently.

If I was trying to engage with a person who presented as being more socially awkward, and they gave the exact same responses then I would have read that as being signs that they were shy and/or I was intimidating them. I would have adjusted, raised my patience level, and try to draw them into a one-on-one conversation. However, because this particular person managed to give off a superficial appearance of being socially skilled, I read the same responses as being aloof, cold, and dismissive. (which is what they would be, coming from a socially skilled person)

A sub-culture I have occasionally felt creeped out in, is swing dancing. I love swing and blues dancing, and will happily dance in a sensual manner, even with people I've never met before, am not at all attracted to, etc, as long as a) they are skilled dancers, and b) they aren't giving off "creepy" vibes. These are correlated, as most leads who have stuck around long enough to be skilled, have also figured out how to be not creepy.

A counter-example of a skilled dancer being creepy: An older male, who I used to enjoy dancing with, once came to a dance a little drunk, and was much more forceful during the dance with pulling me close (it's hard to explain the difference between good-lead-pulling-close, and creepy-forceful-lead-pulling close. ETA- A good explanation is that it is a "demand" rather than a "request"), and such. Now I don't even much like dancing him when he's sober any more.

Another problem is creepy new leads. They see the sensual dancing, and so think they can lead it. This is not okay. Intro classes are offered before every event, and they teach how to do the basic dances. Open position. Closed position. NOT full contact. A non-experienced, new dancer trying to pull me close, etc is NOT GOOD. Most new leads know better, and if anything are a little too shy (tend towards open position only, when closed position is perfectly acceptable).

My ad hoc explanation for this, is that you have to "earn" the more sensual dance moves by putting in your time enough to show that it is about the DANCE, and is NOT about skeeving on me. A guy who shows up to his first or second swing event, and tries to pull me close is communicating that he is more interested in skeeving on girls, than on actually learning to dance.

As an aside, I actually did get the same sort of tensed-up-omg-omg reaction that usually accompanies "creep" behavior, my very first time swing dancing. But I recognized it as a reaction to the fact that random guys where touching me, and in my personal space, in a way I wasn't used to. I realized that it was not AT ALL the fault of the really nice leads who were dancing with the new girl, and completely my own reaction to a physical situation that in my usual circumstances would be weird. I'm sure it didn't help that my first time at a swing event was because I just happened to be where at the location a late-night (post swing dance event that tends towards the more sensual dancing) was, when they showed up.

One general point: while "mansplaining" is not part of my vocabulary, I've looked into whether the word might be about something real, and I've noticed that on NPR call-in shows, men are more likely to take up the very limited amount of time by explaining things that people already know.

This leads into a specific issue: I've had a few instances of men explaining feminism to me and my not liking the experience at all, and I think I've figured out the issue. It's not that they're men, it's that they show no signs of hearing what I say on the topic, and I've seen this from men who are reasonably capable of listening most of the time.

An example of creepy even though it wasn't a sexual approach: a man telling me about how it's a fundamental male thing to protect women from violence. I had two issues-- men actually aren't very good at it (consider that wars frequently happen in places where women are living), and he was twice my size, talking about violence, and completely spaced out. I wasn't afraid on the "get out now" level, but I was spooked.

I post more in PUA and gender type threads than I otherwise would because I worry about the male response to this question. Also, I find people are more receptive to my statement of pro-PUA points because I can include female-centric anecdotal evidence, and I have a feeling that men talking about PUA and gender differences is a massive ugh field.

I would love to be proven wrong about this, if guys want to answer this question.

I'd be interested in knowing more generally how many people refrain to post or reply about potentially mind-killing topics in general because they (think they) are in a group underrepresented on Less Wrong (e.g. conservatives or theists).

I don't think I've ever feared a gender-specific negative response when posting on LessWrong, though I also deliberately use a gender-neutral username.

I post less to PUA/genderthings type threads than my naive inclination would be. Part of this is the (good thing) that there are some people around who sometimes find these threads before I do who I trust to say sane things, many of whom are better at keeping their cool than I am. Part of this is the (bad thing) that I expect to be attacked when I do post, via generalization or just insensitive badgering (and also by voting).

While in such threads, I make a general policy of withholding some relevant personal information, even when I think it could make me more convincing, because I don't want to paint more of a target on myself, or risk the greater emotional fallout of even that not being persuasive.

None. I have far too much self-confidence to be scared off for that reason. I can deal with the frequent disagreements but it took me a looooong time to become comfortable with that. I was people-pleasing and at first I couldn't tolerate the experience of causing or persisting with disagreements because I didn't like making others uncomfortable. I had to train myself to deal with that but I'm good at it now. I have to wonder how many other women would find it hard to put themselves out there and take all the resulting criticism. If women often have a preference for supportive environments, that may be part of the reason for the gender ratio being skewed.

I try not to form opinions about people's gender unless it seems indicated by something they say or their username, and I try not to actually pronoun anyone with a gendered pronoun unless I am pretty sure. (I think I've been mistaken once or twice even then.) To the best of my knowledge, apart from pronouns I don't handle posters differently based on gender except insofar as I have different priors on them having had various experiences.

I'm the complete opposite to Alicorn, so I though I'd just pop in and say. I don't just keep track of gender, but also any other characteristics like age, occupation, nationality; personality etc. While I find it ok to just type like this on the internet, I find it much easier to actually communicate with people. Knowing these sorts of details help me interpret tone, which I think is a vital part of conversations, and the lack of respect for which often a source of internet conflict. I respond differently to aggression, for example, from high-testosterone males to females.

Having more accurate priors of the person I'm talking to also lets me decide if an argument is a lost cause, helps me choose between ambiguous interpretations, and assists me in making the most palatable presentation of my point.

I'm not a woman, but...

How aware are you of the gender or sexual orientation of other LW participants?

As for gender, I start with an about 90% prior probability (from the last survey results) that they are male, and update it according to what I read (most often the username alone is enough to bring the posterior to epsilon or 100% minus epsilon). As for orientation,I don't really care: I know EY is straight but he'd like to self-modify to become bi, and I think Alicorn is bi and lukeprog is straight but I'm not fully sure. That's it. I have read by comments by others mentioning their orientations but I can't even remember them.

Do you mentally assign a gender to each LW user whose comments you read, or who replies to you?

As in aliefs? Usually but not always. (And sometimes the alief is wrong. For example, there's a LWer who, despite having an obviously feminine username, comes across to my alief system as male (not sure why) and there's a Wikipedian (with an apparently feminine username, but he has explained that it's actually a Latin neuter plural and he's male) who comes across to my alief system as a female -- likely because of his username and because of the dingbats such as smileys, heartsuits and musical notes he uses to express his mood. I even called him 'she' by accident a couple times.)

Do you react differently based on the gender of other commenters?

I try not to. And in discussions which don't have anything to do with gender I think I almost always succeed.

I met some really neat girls by visiting the minicamps. They were friendly and most of them liked Luminosity. They were pretty huggy, but didn't make a big deal about it (didn't hold on too long or tense up strangely). (One of them wanted my autograph.) Despite the fact that I am Internet Famous and whatnot, they all clearly had other things to do too and could talk about other topics besides that, which was relevant; I was able to freely circulate through the parties/groups/whatever arrangement people wanted to be in and steer conversations around as easily as I can with people who I already know well.

I have a purely idiosyncratic, aesthetic distaste for the words "women" and "men", so I use "girls" and "guys", occasionally "boys", sometimes "males" and "females", if I'm being a little silly "dude" and "lady". I do sometimes use "women" and "men" when talking in a more formal register.

I like Spivak pronouns when talking about specific gender-unknown individuals where "they" is ambiguous or strange-sounding.

I hate being mispronouned. (I wouldn't mind if someone Spivaked me, but I'd then inform them of my gender.) I hate it even more when people think I'm being ridiculous for hating it.

In general, I prefer "women". If it's a far view discussion, then "females" is ok with me as long as it's paralleled by "males". I don't like "girls" being used to refer to adult women.

I use the singular "they". I don't mind invented pronouns. I get annoyed at male pronouns used to refer to people in general and still get startled at female pronouns used to refer to people in general.

I tend to prefer women. "Girls" often feels a bit demeaning, especially when contrasted with "men" or "guys".

"Females" sounds like somebody's trying to lend their remark a little too much apparently-biological weight.

I like gender-neutral pronouns when they're handy, for people who want them, or for the generic case. I used to be a bit mixed on which one sounded good for just general conversation, but after reading the Eclipse Phase RPG I pretty much stopped having any sympathy for the idea that "singular they" is awkward. It flows very well for me and sounds quite natural, and it's a common term in English so there's no trouble with inflecting it.

what do you use for the third-person-singular-neuter?

They, them, their.

"Women" and "females" are both fine for me. The worst thing is when men are referred to as "men", and women are referred to as "girls" in the same discussion. No.

"Girls" is only ok when referring to children, or in very casual use to refer to a group of female friends. i.e. "Hey, going out with the girls tonight?", or if the male pronoun in that situation would be "boys" or "guys".

If a discussion is going on about gender, as long as no one uses "girls", I don't like when someone brings up "Hey, you should use the term "women" instead of "females"" (or vice versa). It reads as just another way to get the discussion off-track from the important issues.

On a related note, I generally either use the neutral form of the word, or put a note about how even though I used the masculine form I don't like patriarchy. It's just sometimes a hassle to neuter everything, and I like going with the tradition of using the masculine form because I've already internalized it. But I don't want it to feel like I'm overlooking women's concerns.

Anyone here dislike that?

When guys use the word "girls", it makes me wonder if they're teenagers who still spend most of their time with girls. "Females" reminds me of scientific studies... I use it myself if "women" doesn't fit, but due to the association with test subjects, it sounds a bit dehumanizing at times. I like "women" best.

I don't like that we have to use gender pronouns so often, and I wish we had something that never sounded awkward and fit every circumstance. When being gender neutral, I use they/them/their, and may jam them in even if they sound a little off.

I don't know about majority, but I suspect at least some people will say that (the contemporary sort of) feminism is good, which I disagree with.

Not so much in sentiment, because I have reasonable-ish consequentialist ethics, which ends up at most kinds of equality (and pretty much every kind of equality of opportunity). I just find feminism as much of a mindkiller as any other kind of politics. Reading feminist websites makes my brain go ARGH in the "why can't you see how little sense you are making?!" way, so I try not to. There have also been instances on LW where gender discussions just turned into a mess of irrationality.

I wish we could discuss everything in the sensible, factual, case-by-case way that LW recommends. So much of feminism's concerns are easily dissolved, and really not worth turning into a soldiers on one side or the other thing. -Isms are the mind killer, I guess?

(disclaimer: Less Wrong does gender discussions better than a lot of places. I just wish we were better.)

"Death is a bad thing."

I find death aesthetically pleasing as part of the great circle of life, and I also feel that the earth is overpopulated enough as it is. I bring this topic up because it's been noted that females, even rational ones, are often opposed to cryonics. I'm female, and I'm opposed to cryonics.

No, but I think my female LW acquaintances might as individuals object more to being described as "status-oriented, competitive and aggressive concerning their rationality" than my male LW acquaintances.

I don't have any female LW acquaintances.*

*who I interact with regularly enough to answer this question.

I don't have enough interaction with female acquaintances yet.

are you successful

Measuring the success of introspection (as in epistemic success, as opposed to instrumental success) runs into a Wittgensteinian problem heavily. That is, it is ‘As if someone were to buy several copies of the morning paper to assure himself that what it said was true’.

I have a difficult time answering this. I analyze my current motives and mental states and actions in depth, constantly. But I don't spend very much time reviewing my past emotions or actions unless it becomes obvious to me that I made a mistake somewhere. I feel as though I should probably change this.

I am Luminosity Girl! Wheeeeee!

(Tone of speech in particular I don't think I have special control over.)

I introspect almost constantly, and try to keep a detailed archive of my thought processes so I can trace how my beliefs and opinions have evolved over time. I've found introspection extremely effective, especially when I discuss the results of my introspection with various analytical friends.

I'd also like to ask this to the men.

Okay, then...

(More precisely, how often do you consider the motivations for your emotions, attitudes, tone of speech, etc,

Usually, several times per week.

and are you successful.)

I can seldom find good ways to test my introspection, so I don't know.

Well, introspection tells me I'm smart, cool, generous, and good at introspection. Am I really? Let me check... yup.

Would you be interested in having regular "Woman Oriented" threads (such as this one)? If so, how often? I'll set a range from once per month, to once per year.

Oh please no! Don't institutionalize gender drama. Women may make use of the fact that they also happen to be real people and write what they want to say in the "open thread" that is already created once a month. If their sex happens for some reason to be relevant to what they wish to say they can make note of it in the comment in the same way that people can write about their nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation or hair colour.

Voted up because it was a reasonable question. I don't think it needed to be voted down as though it was a campaign.

I feel no need for women oriented threads, myself. However, I feel it's really important to work out dating and gender ratio issues. We've needed an open line of communication about that for a long time. As far as timing is concerned, why make it scheduled? Say something good when you have something good to say.

Didn't see this before, but I would like that. It looks like it's not that popular from the upvotes to wedrifid's comment below, but perhaps people wouldn't have a problem with, e.g. once every six months?

Online: systemic irrationality. Systemic self-reinforcing irrationality. That's why I hang out here :P

In person, a mass lack of social skills make events unfun. Groups are much easier to get along with if they contain a reasonable mix of extroverts and introverts (read: at least two people who act like each).

I've discovered that there are a few things that can scare me away from an interesting place:

• Dysfunctional behavior. A lot of people who have sharp minds don't always apply that in the emotional realm and their behavior shows it. There's a difference between harmless instances of social skill failures and a complete failure to develop as a human being. I don't think "irrationality" covers it. I'm speaking more of a lack of moral maturity. The creepers who think the world revolves around them and the various kinds of dysfunctional behaviors that result in people hurting each other emotionally. I was recently disappointed with the amount of dysfunctional behavior I discovered in a group that I liked and have not been back for some time.

• Elitist behavior, or seeing a bunch of people commit social suicide by smearing the group as "elitist" in public. I considered quitting LessWrong because of that. I decided to stay a bit longer because there's a possibility that the pro "elitism" people will see the error of this and there are enough good things about the group that it seems worthwhile to see whether they reconsider.

People have been welcoming and not sketchy at my local meetup. I look forward to going there. I'm pretty constantly aware that I'm the only or one of the only women there, but I don't feel that other people treat me differently because of it. Sometimes I enjoy the gender ratio. My college and most of my jobs were mostly-female, so being in a mostly-male space is novel and interesting. But I also really enjoyed it when a new woman joined the meetup, because it was nice to feel there was someone a bit more like me (female, with good social skills, smart but not a programmer/scientist).

For women: you have a great deal of control over how other people react to you. You can take some responsibility for how you are perceived.

personal anecdote: I'm a female maths undergrad, and most of my social circle is male. First term there I concentrated on making friends, so I adopted casual, unisex clothing styles. I attracted male attention only when I dressed in a stereotypically girly way for fancy dress parties and social events.

Second term I was on a mate hunt, so I overhhauled my wardrobe and started wearing skirts and behaving in a mate-attracting way. According to my now OH, that's when he "realised I was a girl".

So basically if you don't want men to view you as a potential mate, it's helpful to not act like one. Think hoodies and ill-fitting jeans. And if you have got attracting mates in the back of your mind, and your body language shows it, then you shouldn't be surprised if men notice you.

Second piece of advice for women where it applies: tracking your menstrual cycle is the easiest first step towards luminosity. Different hormones induce different kinds of bias, and also prompt changes in body language and attitude, which may cause people to react differently. The effects can then be harnessed or corrected for.

My question for the women of LW is this: what specific advice do you have, for either gender, that you think will improve the situation?

For men: Consider the women in the subculture "male for all social purposes" and seek romantic interests elsewhere.

I have evidence-based insight into the gender ratio issue. Although it is not a solution, I think it will help everyone understand the problem better.

I have some unpleasant news which is related to IQ (and LessWrong has a higher than average IQ according to the member surveys). There's something up with genetics and intelligence that goes like this (references included): Although men's and women's IQs are the same on average, there are far more gifted men than women. The explanation is that high intelligence is due to a mutation. Men are more affected by mutations. Therefore they are about twice as likely to get both beneficial and detrimental intelligence mutations, which is why they are unbalanced for gifted populations but even out in population averages. "Diseases inherited in an X-linked recessive pattern mostly affect males, because a second X chromosome usually protects females from showing symptoms." (From: How Are Genetic Disorders Inherited?) See also: Mensa's demographics page where they report a 33% female : 66% male ratio (for the top 2% in IQ).

I've heard it reported by people with very high IQs that the higher the IQ range, the worse the gap is. This may be true if higher IQs require multiple mutations.

If refining rationality, science, etc. or the specific forms of these that interest LW members tend to appeal most to people with high IQs, this ratio is probably, unfortunately, going to affect groups like these whatever you do. Of course, if the male to female ratio is 2:1 in Mensa (unsure what their average IQ is, just that the minimum is the top 2%) this means there's probably room for improvement. However, short of genetic engineering or brain implants, the gender ratio problem is likely to persist for high IQ groups like this even if a perfect strategy was used for making women feel more comfortable.

If the important thing is to be able to have children one day, then creating or using a service for finding intelligent women who are willing to have children for others would be one way.

Another idea might be encouraging women to work extra hard to refine their rational thinking skills, explaining that they'll interest more intelligent men that way. As we know, women can be picky and they tend to have a preference for intelligence. If they know that smart guys are looking for rational women, some of them may devote attention to it the way that many women currently devote attention to hair and make-up. Not all women will be interested, and it won't solve the incompatibilities that IQ differences cause, but it may help bridge gaps that aren't too great and lead to there being more female rationalists.

I feel that addressing the "creepiness" issues could go a long way to get interested women interacting more. Nerdy men are definitely my type but I'm often put off by their behavior. I'd like to date more, but the behaviors I describe here are disheartening, so I'm not nearly as motivated as I could be. Understanding women better is a great first step. I'm glad to see that the guys are looking into what's going on.

Unfortunately, I can't provide you advice or evidence and don't know that anybody can - I'm not aware of any projects or experiments to specifically try to increase the number of females in a male dominated social group.

Brain differences are nowhere near the entire story. There are so many different chemicals that can be floating around in your brain at any given time. Oxytocin might give you some insight here. They've done studies that showed that this hormone increases things like trust, trustworthiness, generosity, empathy and morality.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html

This same video explains that testosterone increases selfishness and punishing behaviors. Different sources say different things about how oxytocin affects each gender, but there's a theme where they're saying the women either have higher oxytocin or stronger reactions to it or that testosterone interferes with it, etc. Essentially the message in the theories is "Women more frequently act on the influence of oxytocin".

Here is what this is like for me:

Imagine, for a moment, feeling ten times less selfish (the video says men have 10x the testosterone, not sure if our subjective experiences correspond exactly, but that's my guess for the following hypothetical scenarios). Now imagine being high every time you do something nice. For me, this means the world feels beautiful, I feel secure and peaceful, and I feel satisfied in a way that nothing else can match.

Imagine someone doing something bad to you. Imagine you're not even selfish enough to be angry. I don't always stay calm, but the things that don't make me angry might surprise you. Now imagine feeling sorry for the person instead of worrying about yourself. This is what it feels like to be me. People like me have to work hard on developing rational self-interest. You've probably wondered about the phenomenon where a lot of women get attached to an abusive man and keep trying to love him into being a better person even though he's abusing her. I haven't had problems saying no since my early twenties, but it took work to learn to be strong enough to say no and be firm. These hormonal differences may explain that.

If you're motivated by helping, and you even feel sorry for people who hurt you, how much motivation do you have to go out and learn more about how to make money? If your brain rewards you with a high whenever you're nice to someone, how much more time would you want to spend doing that? If what gratifies you is expressing empathy, this changes your priorities by, at the very least, competing with your other interests. In my case, I prefer playing helping roles so much that it trumps just about everything else for me. Here is a chart that shows the results of some studies done to compare the interests of highly intelligent adult men and women (I figure if the LW surveys are right about member's IQs being in the 140s on average, this chart is more applicable here than a random one).

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10176.aspx

Notice things like the women are much more interested in community service, social contacts and teaching children (all of which require caring) and men are more interested in law (which demands an aggressive personality because you're fighting over who wins). Sure, you can help people with money, but that way, you give them the most benefit while spending the least amount of time actually interacting with them. Most people have empathy and like helping but not everyone can do it full-time. I, on the other hand, like helping so much I can't be bothered to spend a large amount of time on money. After I clock out at the end of the day, it's time for me to help someone.

If oxytocin tends to affect the genders differently (or if testosterone contradicts it), this explains a lot of gender differences - why men tend to be more aggressive, why women tend to be more socially accommodating and it may explain why they aren't as interested in economics - they may just prefer roles that require caring instead.

In the brain females have more nerves (white matter), and males have more glia (grey matter); this doesn't mean much, though. Glia react to neurotransmitters, which means they may have processing capabilities as yet unknown; considering this and humans' neuroplasticity, nothing can be reasonably inferred from this distinction.

That's the only physiological difference of the cortex between sexes, as far as I'm aware.

I don't do a lot of role-playing, don't know what tripping is (though I can guess) and don't know why someone would need to trust someone to help with it.

To learn how to trip more safely and more productively I highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Explorers-Guide-Therapeutic-Journeys/dp/1594774021

I have no idea what "role play control" is. The whole mindset of "tricks" to "control" yourself is generally counterproductive for tripping. Instead one should do their best to ensure a good set and setting, have a sitter and then "let go" and make themselves open to the experience.

Sorry.

That's a really, really big question. I think if you want a good answer to that, we'd need to do a study. I'm deeming that outside my ability to determine with a worthwhile level of accuracy.

I'd like an option to hide all karma scores. There's two reasons for this:

• I worry that by seeing the karma of a post before reading the post, I will be unfairly biased toward or against that post. I'd really like to make up my own mind about these things before seeing what the community has decided. I'm pretty sure my opinions change drasticallly based on the opinions of the group I'm in, and this seems counterproductive for rationality (although very useful for social cohesion).

• I'm embarrassed to admit that karma scores affect my emotions a lot. Each time I lose a karma point, it's like an emotional punch in the face. If someone politely disagreed with my post, I would not have this reaction. If someone violently disagreed with my post, I'd either be slightly upset, very amused, or both. But when I lose a karma point, I feel intense shame. Also, when I gain karma, I feel intense pride. When I post here, I feel like I'm talking to "win karma", not to engage in an interesting discussion with thoughtful, intelligent people. This isn't a motivation/reaction I like to have, and that's why I almost never post here, and instead spend all my time on IRC. Basically, because of the karma system, I try not to say anything that might be disapproved of, and I'm reluctant to engage in candid discussion. Those of you who know me on IRC or IRL might be surprised to hear this, because in those situations I almost always discuss my thoughts/opinions candidly without fearing social rejection; in fact, in those situations, I genuinely don't care whether I'm rejected. I don't know why the karma system on LW is so different for me. Anyway, I'm going to try to train my emotional system to ignore karma altogether the way I've trained it not to care about IRL rejection; we'll see how that goes.

@-moz-document domain("lesswrong.com") {
span.label, span.score, span.monthly-score {
 display:none !important;
}
}

@-moz-document domain("lesswrong.com") {
  span.label, span.score, span.monthly-score, .votes {
    display:none !important;
  }
}

Trn (a comprehensive system for managing long discussions which was used on usenet and was never rewritten for the web). I'm expecting an age difference on this one, not a gender difference.

Up-down karma vote histories.

However, I'm fine with anonymous voting. I think we'd get even more conflict and less good voting if votes had names attached to them.

Built-in polling would be excellent, preferably with some way of handling whether people's poll answers were correlated. I don't know whether most polling systems have this-- the only one I've used is livejournal, and it doesn't.

I want more support for the public votes feature (I want it to work backwards and on comments). I'd also like built-in polling support.

I'd like a policy change:

Due to the widespread elitism or appearance of elitism, I am very concerned. People in the outside world aren't going to make distinctions between a group of people who call themselves "elitists" for harmless reasons versus people who believe they're "better than others" and are therefore entitled to special treatment or to make exceptions to the rules for themselves. It's also a weird surprise because it's in direct conflict with the site's vision - to spread rationality. Spreading rationality necessarily means transmitting it to people who are not good at rational thought, because focusing on transmitting it to people who are already good at it does not qualify as "spreading" it.

Imagine going into a room full of strangers and announcing that you are an elitist. Does this strike no one else as socially inept? Yet here we are in public, and people are announcing to the world of strangers that we are elitists. I don't like being smeared as an "elitist" by these people, I know the world will see me as guilty by association. The rest of the world isn't known for being rational. If they see a group of people calling themselves "elitists" they won't stop to make distinctions. They'll just err on the side of caution by assuming you guys are a bunch of overbearing jerks. This is about as smart, in my view, as going back in time few hundred years and claiming to enjoy casting magic spells. It doesn't matter if you're referring to an RPG game, you just invited a witch hunt.

Maybe you guys figure anybody intelligent will agree with your attitude. No. It's a perfectly constructive use of one's intelligence to take measures to avoid committing social suicide. That this group allows itself to be associated with the term "elitism" - that nobody moderates those comments and that they're being voted up to the sky - is a public relations disaster waiting to happen. At first, it didn't even occur to me that the people here might not realize that. That's such a no brainer to me, I assumed you didn't care because you really do think you're better than them, so you can afford to provoke the outside world and just ignore their ire. Now, I am considering that the people on this website may just be socially inept enough to do that and not realize how crazy it looks to non-elitist intellectuals like me.

As I've said before, maintaining quality does not require you to wear a scary word that is used to mean "overbearing jerk". I think you guys need a no elitism policy which includes: A.) Not letting people behave in an abusive or insulting way toward people who may not have the same education or IQ. B.) Not smearing the organization by using the word "elitist" lightly to describe LessWrong. I don't want to associate myself with an elitist or "elitist" organization. The only reason I haven't quit already is because I still have a sense of possibility that you guys will eventually grok what an assassination you're launching against your reputations and I think that the good things about this group and the vision you're gathered around make it worth continuing to discuss the topic of elitism with you.

I'm new to less wrong so my opinions may not be seen to count as much as more regular users. But anyway, I definitely think the voting should be anonymous in order to avoid petty conflicts. I also think there may be some flaws in the voting system. While I think it is a good thing that long time users and regular contributors to less wrong as well as interesting and insightful comments are recognised and rewarded for their input with karma points I feel there may also be some downsides: For example in some situations people may want to say something that conflicts with the opinion of the majority of users commenting on a thread but decide against it due to the prospect of being down voted (as well as comments). I noticed that in this thread alicorn said she had felt this way about commenting on threads about gender issues. Also if someone decides to say something controversial anyway (compared to other attitudes on the thread) this may get down voted and become invisible. I think this is bad because it is preferable to have a variety of views represented on any thread or the discussion may suffer due to one sidedness. I have read before that people tend to seek out those who share their view point and ignore opposing opinions but i think it would be better to have a debate when such situations arise rather than completely sidelining views that we don't agree with which is a danger with the down voting system. Of course it is a different case when a comment is unacceptable to the standards of the community by being obscene etc but that could be dealt with by the "report" function. I don't think the up/ down vote system should be abandoned but maybe some modifications could be made.

Actually, I have run into enough guys who treat me like I'm the last woman on earth because I'm a female nerd that I've developed an aversion to anything resembling that type of behavior. I was understanding about their enthusiasm at first, because I want a nerd, too, but it just doesn't work to date someone when they're acting like you're their last chance. They want to move too fast, they create expectations, they become biased and won't hear me when I talk about things that may be incompatibilities. That intensity throws a wrench into the process of getting to know someone. I grok their sense of necessity about being careful in how they present themselves, and I approve of this thread (There are a lot of things I wish I could say to guys - we need to communicate, and I have been wishing for an opportunity to do that), but on the individual level, I am easily spooked by signs of early attachment, overly optimistic probability estimates about us working out, and impatience to see signs of an established connection. I go on the alert for these signs of irrationality if a person treats me "like a celebrity" or similar. For the record none of the questions in this thread (so far) have bothered me.

As for whether it feels empowering, no. First of all, my sense of self-worth is not connected to my attractiveness. I am more than my ability to attract a mate. Secondly, being one of the few nerdy women has only served to highlight the fact that dating between nerds is pretty dysfunctional. At first, it was fun to have so much attention (other nerd spot) but it quickly became obvious that more attention does not convert into a larger ratio of real romance opportunities. There are a lot of incompatible guys trying to make me like them and hoping they can magically "make it work", and the ones who do seem good have problems like the above, and I feel a need to cut it short to prevent dysfunction. I think the crazy male-to-female ratio among nerds has caused more damage to my dating life than anything - so that's what I usually think of when I am reminded of it, not how "empowered" I feel.

It's not really flattering (or, as Captain Hook would say "I want no such compliments!"). Being sexually harassed is not empowering, and trying to troubleshoot it isn't invigorating, it's just useful. I'm glad to help people avoid pattern matching to behaviors that look like threats/seem condescending/just aren't fun, and I think it's appropriate to spend a little time discussing them.

I wouldn't want this topic to keep seeding new threads the way the Endless September discussion did, but I don't think starting the discussion dooms us to that fate. And if you're worried about that threat, start another quite interesting thread on a different topic.

Some of each. I like attention, and bringing up my gender is a great way to get attention, because many people are interested in the rare female perspective on various LW topics. (It seems, though, that the attention I seek and receive on LW regarding gender is unrelated to my boobs.) When I don't want gender-related attention, I simply don't mention my gender; having a gender-neutral username is nice. Sometimes I like participating in discussions about gender/PUA/etc. without revealing that I'm female.

Why do you think those are the only alternatives? Or an especially interesting pair of alternatives?

I've assumed that daenerys gets karma and attention (at a fairly ordinary level) because they're a good poster about difficult topics.

I get so much free Karma for being a girl that it's making my dopamine system short out good sense sometimes. Karma is majorly addictive. I keep coming back to this topic because I'm getting so much of it.

I also think it's rather unfair that I often get way more karma for saying the same stuff as a man does, but with a "feminine anecdote" or "feminine caveat". My model of LW would have a very critical argument with a man trying to make evopsych arguments with nonobvious generalisations, but a post I make about it where I explicitly signal femaleness would get upvotes.

I think it's tremendously unhelpful that just signalling being a girl gets a post more karma (though I can understand that we want "more of this" as in women posting, I personally end up doing "more of this" as in signalling being female). My system 1 is just flat-out addicted though and doesn't even want me to complain.

Is this comment intended as snark?