/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

I'm more surprised due to the low amount of women I've met at rationality meetups, as well as the lower percentage reported in surveys like the yearly LW one.

It depends mostly on the subject rather than the medium. There are some channels on freenode (not related to softwre projects) where females are somewhat common.

i dunno, i usually avoid groups like this but there's something about our collective that makes me okay with being female and being in this group simultaneously. i approve of this mystery thing.

I don't think there's a high proportion of XX. Match the entire slack between XX and XY. Rationlhell, though…

>>5574

>don't think there's a high proportion of XX

It is much larger than the 1-3% of the OP

You know a really amazingly high proportion of the women on IRC are trans. I'm not being contrarian here I just find it kind of crazy.

And the.. already ridiculously high numbers I have are probably an underestimate, because, it's not like trans women go around announcing their transness every time their gender comes up, and it's not like I can ask them.

"<something something> <I'm female> <something>"

"Ah but are you trans?"

I'm not doing that dirty work.

Did IRC ever do a general survey?

>>5576

Survey 2016 "Diaspora Edition" has those questions

( in "are you on the irc" "are you on the slack" and the "what's your gender/ASAB/etc" ones)

>>5577

Sure. I dunno if the results are in yet?

>>5578

must wait for the merry month of may

>>5570

the rational thing to do here is buy a set of communal dresses, fishnets, etc. (not cute panties naturally; everyone will be required to buy their own cute panties) and make all the guys take turns being women for a day. i'm so glad i'm a virtuous enough person that the rational thing to do is in total accord with my fetish

>>5582

Not quite total accord for me. I prefer longer-term "be a girl for the good of the tribe" stuff.

I basically just can't be bothered being trans.

>>5573

People don't have utility functions, their internal desires come into conflict. Read The Crystal Society.

>>5584

>their internal desires come into conflict

But in the end, one must be stronger than the others? Or a mix of them?

An agent can only ever take one action at a given time, the action they are taking determines their values.

>>5584

seconding the book rec

>>5584

>People don't have utility functions

reported

>>5584

> People don't have utility functions,

yes they do, they're just fucking inconsistent

or maybe you mean "what we call 'utility function' of people isn't a function because it doesn't fit the mathematical definition of function"

but that would be pedantry

> their internal desires come into conflict.

yes

> Read The Crystal Society.

maybe someday

>>5585

>But in the end, one must be stronger than the others? Or a mix of them?

yes

which (mix) is stronger fluctuates all the time

> An agent can only ever take one action at a given time,

arguable

> the action they are taking determines their values.

no it's the inverse opposite contrary

their values determine their actions

insofar as they're correct when choosing the actions that will satisfy their values

>>5588

Proves too much. If that argument worked, it would imply that it is impossible for any pattern of behavior to ever violate the von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms, and that all possible agents are rational agents.