Here's just a reminder that if you are a computational cognitive modeller and also part of any minority in the field, join this club full of amazing people: http://compcog.science/ And if you organize conferences / workshops / etc: It's also a good source for possible speakers!
-
-
Another option is to return to just being "women in modeling", perhaps? But the binarism of that kind of upsets me. But it would reduce the worry that we are treating all minorities in modeling the same? FWIW I'm in every minority mentioned.
-
I've looked in/around similar issues myself re: lists of people for a while. If I were to do something like this now, I would (i) consult with a lawyer specifically re GDPR (ii) start over again, and only include people who self-nominate/volunteer to be on it >
-
This is good advice -- I really think self-vol is crucial for many reasons. One of them being tied to identity-- I've been really uncomfortable when people slap me onto lists of "women in CL/AI/etc." Despite their good intentions
-
Absolutely. I only have one public Twitter list, and I only add people to it when I have their permission to do so, for specifically this reason.
-
FWIW I can take it down if you two feel this way, but I'm a bit worried as people use it to find others and offer them jobs.
-
As a non-queer man (allocishet) I don't have any valid take on this, IMHO - it's only that when talking with others about lists of this kind (e.g. around bioinformatics) that what I describe seems to be a consensus-ish around the opinions I've heard from others.
-
What you describe though isn't what I've done. I didn't collect any data for each person, merely that they belong to some of the minority categories in modeling. If you think it's a problem, I respect that and I offer to take the list down.
-
FWIW I would keep it up, and/but if anyone on the list, or from any of the minorities involved in it asks you to change it in some way (delete it, remove them, etc.) then I'd do it. It clearly has value. My engagement >
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I feel like looking into a way to verify that people themselves have added themselves to the list is *crucially important*. Even if it's just a mechanism that is for verification purposes only.
-
I don't think we'd have got as many names if, e.g., high-ranking women profs had to add themselves (people higher up the food chain seem to have no time for such things, right?). But you're saying it's more important to be self-added? Then we have to start again.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
