also, when i do that thing i was just talking about—think about what i said, realize that i’m not sure of it, and offer a qualification—
the motive is rationality/a respect for the truth
but i can tell it sometimes comes across as feminine signalling, like apologizing a lot (something i also do)—qualifying your sentences whether with uncertainty or apology, is super ladylike.
so. two things.
women are frequently told to stop qualifying themselves so much (remember that pantene commercial?). and honestly the apologies can probably go but saying out loud when you’re not sure of something is awesome and good, men should pick it up.*
also, people act like rationality and truth-seeking is something that men are just naturally more interested in…
but (i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again)
men (whether because of genetics or hormones or socialization or whatever) tend to be more into the argumentative, statistical, i’m-sure-i’m-right side of truth seeking, and that kind of fact-bravado is frequently interpreted as rationality
but women are socialized/gened/hormoned into being pretty damn good at epistemic humility and belief updating, which (except in the less wrong community) doesn’t get as much social respect, and isn’t seen as part of rationality
basically….femininity and rationality aren’t opposed, but their connections are lower status than connections between masculinity and rationality……why do you think that is…………………………………………………….
*for instance, see this article, which talks about how feminine-coded uncertainty can actually give better outcomes in male-coded fields, even though that feminine uncertainty is low-status
I think I’m pretty good at epistemic humility but according to my mom and Sheryl Sandberg I should probably stop being good at it so I can like succeed in the workforce.
I feel like my favorite way (okay this is like a giant cultural shift so it’s not exactly a solution) to get more women in high-status positions would be to value aggression less and humility more in hiring/promoting decisions. Except I’m not really sure if this valuing of overconfidence is actually rational for reasons I don’t understand?