Michael_Wiebe comments on Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA - Effective Altruism Forum

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (229)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Michael_Wiebe 31 October 2017 10:12:03PM 2 points [-]

Is it true that men score higher than women in 'thinking' vs 'feeling'? If so, the EA community (being dominated by men) might be structured in ways that appeal to 'thinkers' and deter 'feelers'. To reduce the gender gap in EA, we would have to make the community be more appealing to 'feelers' (if women are indeed disproportionately 'feelers').

Comment author: Kelly_Witwicki 01 November 2017 12:09:10AM *  0 points [-]

I think we score quite a bit worse on "feeling" than most altruistically-driven communities and individuals, men included.

[Edit: Point being, yes we're lacking in feeling, but "thinking vs. feeling" is not a tradeoff we have to make to increase our A (or our gender parity, which isn't an inherent problem but is tightly related to our problems). EA's whole purpose is to combine both and we should aim to recruit people who score high on both, not just one or the other. Sorry for the excessive edits.]

Comment author: Michael_Wiebe 01 November 2017 09:52:46PM 0 points [-]

My understanding of Myers Briggs is that 'thinking' and 'feeling' are mutually exclusive, at least on average, in the sense that being more thinking-oriented means you're less feeling-oriented. The E vs. A framing is different, and it seems you could have people who score high in both. Is there any personality research on this?

Comment author: ateabug 02 November 2017 09:19:21PM 0 points [-]

Is there any personality research on this?

Doesn't personality psychology use the BIg Five instead of Myers Briggs? AFAIK there isn't enough research to determine the validity and usefulness of the 'thinking' / 'feeling' categories (and Myers Briggs in general).