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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Also discussed on the ACX open thread here.
Crossposting my take:
Analogy time. Someone posts on twitter about the health benefits of drinking mercury. Millions follow them, the FDA starts to recommend a daily intake of 1g Hg. After a few years, someone happens to notice that a lot of people die of mercury poisoning.
Would it be fair to say that this twitter user has killed millions?
I would say perhaps, but there is clearly more blame to go around. Why would the FDA trust what a random person on twitter says, that is grossly irresponsible. Why did nobody notice all the bodies piling up?
Now, some people might claim there is a difference between trusting a random tweet and trusting a peer reviewed medical study, but in my mind, there is not -- only a complete fool would do either. At least do a meta-analysis of five studies done by different institutions (this leads to https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dml8wLEUUAASwZi.jpg but still seems like the least worst option). I mean, if Scott had written an article "Beta blockers before surgery: much more than you wanted to know", I would not have expected him to say "well, this guy sure publishes a lot of studies in favor of them, so I guess they are fine".
Also, if the new clinical guidelines based on the fraudulent study lead to a fucking 27% of excess mortality, there should be someone whose fucking job it is to notice that fact.
In a way, this feels like if Boeing decided to base their flight controls on a Windows 95 platform, and blame Microsoft for the resulting computer+plane crashes. It is fine to say that Microsoft is to blame because Win95 was obviously not fit for sale, but the bulk of error was to decide to control an airplane with it, so most of the blame would depend on the specifics: did MS actively push Fly-By-Win or did they not?
I was thinking the same thing. It should also be noted that the policy was enacted in 2009, while the debunking meta-study uses studies from 1996-2008. Someone was asleep at the wheel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link