site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 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.

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Beware of making generalizations based on data with massive survivor bias. Yes, the individuals extremely successful in their field may have started young, but you also need to consider all the kids that were pushed into a field just as early. If at five you try to ascertain a kid's interest (ballerina!) and then push them into it with rigorous training (hours of ballet classes!), sure, you will get reasonable competency, but not Anna Pavlova quality. Meanwhile, there is this massive influx of ballerina-wannabees where already there is a glut.

I agree with your idea that it would help to introduce a child to various useful pursuits and to support it in those pursuits in which it shows interest and aptitude. (So something like the Montessori method.)

I think this depends on what you mean by pushing. There are ways to incentivize and promote childhood expertise that don’t revolve around “I will punish you if you don’t train for hours every day”. You can put a child in formative social contexts where their identity becomes tied to the skill, and where they want to master the skill in order to enhance their reputation in the social context. A bad thing to do would be to threaten your child to be a pianist. A good thing to do would be to show him how amazingly well good pianists are treated socially, how they get to go on adventures around the world, how the skill is valuable, how beautiful the music they make is, present them in front of a kind pianist who they now want to please… once their identity has been changed, then you can gently criticize their worst habits of laziness. I recall reading a study on this (child prodigies) and the author noted that the first months of skill development must purely involve play, interest, and fun. The hard training comes later in the same way it does for soccer players — but surely no one would think a top soccer player ought not be forced to train.

If you take the Chomsky example, you can imagine he was eager to please his father and father’s friends. The Magnus example, he was eager to accrue as many wins and titles as he could. There’s an element of, like, gentle propaganda here.

Yeah, for sure. Kids being pushed/prodded into extracurriculars or enrichment is par for the course in high-SES areas; few become any good.