I’m not interested in the truth, and whatever it is, if it turns out that there is a discrepancy, then it is harmful to society to make that truth known.
It’s like the recent discovery by a group of cold case investigators that it was likely a Jewish banker who gave away the location of Anne Frank’s family to the Germans. Apart from that this finding wouldn’t hold up in court according to the investigators themselves, it gets presented by the media as the absolute truth. Even if it happens to be true, the message that stays in people’s mind is “Jews can’t be trusted”.
I want to draw a parallel to OGS’s longstanding discussion of “Why aren’t there strong dans playing on OGS?”
It usually follows a similar track of researching (stereotyping) what strong players value and are motivated by. This is fine and useful. Then it kind of stops with the issue of OGS not being able to compete with Fox/Tygem on those particular values (fast queues primarily). I think OGS kind of gives up on other things that can be done. Probably because of an effort to reward balance.
I think that is what is happening with this thread about women in Go. Can we focus on meeting values and motivations? Even if Go never competes with Sims or Stardew Valley, it can still be improved. We could also think about barriers and deterrents.
edit: and of course a major factor in both issues is inertia. Strong players want to interact with other strong players… I think it’s similar for women.
When I see people advocating for whatever the newest version of eugenics might be, or the idea that our genetics/gender/IQ, etc are the most important determining factors in our life story, I take comfort in this:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
I agree that is the danger of oversimplification and stereotypes, the secret of success of populist politicians.
But I also believe that the people involved in this thread are not the kind of people that would readily fall for populists. There are obviously significant differences in political views, but I’m sure we are all rational people here, listening to each other’s arguments.
I chimed in just now out of dismay about how the thread became about researching and arguing over stereotypes pointlessly.
Now, I’ll put in some thoughts that I think are more ontopic/productive.
I think it’s VERY important to not treat the underrepresented group like a stereotype. Even if any of these stereotypes are provably true, if they are here then they have already broken that stereotype. Notice how short of a jump it is to go from believing in a stereotype to what I think most recognize as explicit sexism with Claire’s first examples:
I’m sure this clear and obvious to everyone. Don’t act on stereotypes. Even the discussion of them can be hurtful. Even if there may be some value in using good research and data to brainstorm improvements.
So, how about that? Could this study be useful?
Could we increase the community aspect of OGS somehow? I’m not sure, that seems to be one of OGS’s strong suits. Maybe the women could chime in on deterrents that keep them from engaging more than they do.
OGS could obviously improve it’s design.
What about more work on badges? I really love the way that they were given out for the Dan challenge last year but I think that 100 games is way too hard. OGS could do more of that targeted at beginners.
“How can we make go more enjoyable for various kinds of people, including women?”
Answering the first question may (or may not) give hints how to answer the second. But from this thread I get the impression that answering the first question is difficult, painful and frankly speaking not necessary (that is, not necessary for finding answers to the second question). Maybe all this energy could be better spent by brainstorming answers to the second question.
“The discussion of of X is harmful” is a non-starter.
If this was a discussion, we wouldn’t have any issues. It is not a discussion, sadly. There are people who say A, people who say B, people who say unrelated things C, some who say “how dare you be of opinion A”, “how dare you be of opinion B”.
It would seem that the initial question “Why are there fewer women than men who play Go?” asks for a truth, and not for a gospel. If you are looking for a truthful answer to that question, you cannot exclude possibilities based on gospel / conviction / dogma, whatever you don’t want to call it.
Note that martin is correct, we can also act independently from any claim to “the bigger truth”. We can simply say “Hey, I’d like to see more girls and women play Go. Wouldn’t you?” and you would hear a resounding choir of “For sure!”. What are your suggestions?
Please read my posts carefully and don’t misrepresent what I write by deleting the context.
(In fact, please don’t misrepresent what I write, at all, by whatever means.)
If someone says “I think it’s A” and I ask “I see, how could you be convinced otherwise, what kind of evidence would you have to see?” and the answer is “None”, … that’s called dogma. A belief that must not be questioned.
You’re trying to investigate stereotypes and arguing your opinion. Your entire post:
Which is provably wrong by a single woman who didn’t attend a Go club or event because of a sexist experience. Bad faith argument at best. Completely unproductive at best.
Additionally, the attitude of “I’m here [in this discussion] to change your mind” is a non-starter to many.
I live in a wealthy country. My sister happened to choose economics over physics when she went to university.
At some point she expressed some regret about her choice, that maybe physics would have been more to her liking, but she did get her PhD in economics (bearing 4 children during that time) and she currently teaches in Tilburg university. I suppose there are more female economists than female physicists, but is economics less analytical than physics?
Incorrect. As I have written above, I am asking what kind of evidence would be necessary to sway someone’s assessment. That’s not an argument, that is “establishing a common basis of understanding”. If someone tells me, point blank, that he is not going to change his view no matter the evidence to the contrary, any effort in that direction would be wasted.
I value my time. If someone is unwilling to even consider that he could be mistaken, trying to discuss anything would be an utter waste of time by definition.
I really wish I could provide a larger and more detailed answer, but I feel it is far to easy to come off as politically incorrect and a sexist these days without even intending to so I will just try to keep this short and to the point by commenting on the OP.
Yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just because you are a woman doesn’t mean you cannot enjoy this hobby or get good at it.
I think if we strictly ask this question in terms of OGS, as an online server, then I think it is mainly personal inclination. Extending this outwards more towards the entire go community, then there could be some cultural issues in some areas. If I am correct in terms of OGS, then we just need to let people make their own choices. Men don’t have to play the game because they are a man and women don’t have to play the game because they are a women. It is all about personal choice, and nothing to do with gender. It is so easy to create an OGS account and learn the game with free online resources that I just don’t see how women who are interested in the game be put at a noticeable, concrete disadvantage and have a hard time being accepted in most of the community these days.
If that is true, though I am kind of just repeating myself, I think we need to let women make their own choices and stop letting society either say that (a). since there are not as many women doing x as there are men, more women need to be doing x. Perhaps many women really just don’t want to do x. Again, that is just fine. It is their choice.
It’s unfortunate that you too are unwilling to conduct an actual discussion.
Regardless, the following would be an example for a sensible answer (if unfeasible request, but that aside) to that question:
“Well, I would have to see and hear with my own eyes and ears that every girl and every woman has given the game a fair shot, that they’d personally tell me it just wasn’t for them. That no one hindered them from partaking in the community, that in fact they were welcomed with open arms, and that they would have loved to be a part of that community, if only the game itself wasn’t so incredibly boring.”
That is simply bad faith and wasting your discussion partners time. Especially when you are asking them about a claim that you aren’t even supporting. It is a debate tactic.
Let me just clarify and end this. I’m convinced that you are debating rather than discussing and you are also doing it in bad faith. It is unlikely, and unimportant, that you change my mind in this case. I’ll also leave this discussion with you.
I am unsure if you are commenting on either my post or replying to @aesalon , @smurph.
My apologies but the context vs. who you responded to confuses me.
