site banner
PaperclipPerfector  24d ago (text post)   29185 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thanks for the article. It exhibits a pattern I’ve noticed of wanting to signal sophistication and subtlety by injecting confusion and the resolving it.

Here we have an article about a guy who has acknowledged using fake data.

Why does the article waste time discussing accidentally incorrectly performed research?

It’s so the author can navigate the murky waters created by introducing a fairly unrelated topic, then sieving out the original point which anyone could have made in two paragraphs.

Between this, the Alzheimer’s stuff, and many others it seems pretty dire for the trust the scientists crowd.

Here we have an article about a guy who has acknowledged using fake data.

He very explicitly did not admit to using fake data:

A spokesman for Poldermans told the paper he admitted not keeping to research protocols but denied faking data.

Sure, there's a good chance he's lying about that. But it seems like an important distinction.

Read a little further:

In one study it was found that he used patient data without written permission, used fictitious data and that two reports were submitted to conferences which included knowingly unreliable data.

Regret

The professor agrees with the committee’s conclusions and expressed his regret for his actions. Poldermans feels that as experienced researcher he should have been more accurate but states that his actions were unintentional.

Or they have a quota for article length and needed to pad it out.

This is a very common thing you encounter where the first 3-5 chapters of some nonfiction book are compelling and directly relevant to the author’s main thesis. Then the rest of the book is vaguely related to the thesis, mostly it’s other things the author has studied and can write competently about.

Publishers are reticent to put an 80 page book on the shelves even if that’s the best version of the book the author can produce.

I've noticed this so much in nonfiction books I've read lately, and a few fiction ones too!

100-120 pages of really amazing insights that are explained and applied in intuitive ways. Then another 100 or so pages of banal platitudes that vaguely follow from the rest. A big one is applying whatever insights they've made to social issue du jour. "Here's how my groundbreaking research into quantum hyperlinking across nonlocal space can help address... climate change." (I made that up, to be clear)

Big ideas don't necessarily need a novel-length treatment to explain in full, even addressing all the possible implications. But selling books is one of the few proven ways to make a buck from specialized academic research (until you have a saleable product, I guess) so that's the mold they'll trying to fill.

I basically never get past 1/3 of non-fiction books, but I often feel slightly guilty about it. It seems arrogant to say the last 2/3 is filler or stuff I can work out myself but…

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats