site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   25747 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 25, 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.

By why do the university part for 100K a year? I can buy the works of Shakespeare for $50 or less. And unless you actually need the credentials, paying a house mortgage for a piece of paper that says you’re a Shakespeare expert is pretty prohibitive for most people.

A lot of people don't understand what they read or how to apply it until they have had a conversation with others about it. Hence the usefulness of book clubs.

I don't know why people do this. But lots of people take on a mortgage to get a piece of paper saying they studied when the resources for autodidacticism are readily available.

I’ll be honest that colleges have done an excellent job of conflating the ideas of education and credentials to the point where a sizable percentage of Americans believe that you cannot possibly have learned anything about a subject unless you’ve done so in a university and received a course credit if not a diploma from a university. It’s a brain bug that most people have been trained to believe that keeps them willing to spend big money to make their learning count even if the return on the investment isn’t there.

I think that this is starting to change as the prospects for those students is known to be less than people who study more job-skills oriented degree programs. The Gen Z term for a humanities degree is “Mom’s Basement Studies”. It’s probably going to change a lot more as competition for good office jobs gets fiercer and thus the need to get a useful degree becomes paramount, the idea that you can’t hobby-study these interesting but not very useful things on your own will fall away. It’s hard to remain a snob about having a diploma on your wall when you have a job that doesn’t require any college and owe your college $100K in principle and interest and cannot ever see yourself being financially successful

The Gen Z term for a humanities degree is “Mom’s Basement Studies”.

This isn't new. Us Millenials had "What do you say to an English graduate with a job?" Big Mac and a large fries, please and "Barista of Arts"

Sorry, Gen X said the same thing about English majors.

“Underwater Basket Weaving” as a pejorative for worthless degrees dates back to 1953.

a sizable percentage of Americans believe that you cannot possibly have learned anything about a subject unless you’ve done so in a university and received a course credit if not a diploma from a university

Traditionally, a diploma functions as proof that a reasonable person has assessed what you've learned about a subject and confirmed you actually understand it. A lot of autodidacts think that they know more about the subject than they do; you need someone to push you in uncomfortable directions and point out the flaws in your understanding.

Obviously, universities are increasingly bad at this, but it's still necessary.

A lot of autodidacts think that they know more about the subject than they do;

It's one of these things repeated uncritically, like how it used to be common wisdom in the anglosphere that raising a kid bilingual somehow confuses them. Literally, where are you getting this from?

The autodidacts that I've known, as well as those online such as Yudowsky. Just because it's a stereotype deployed by the woke to hold onto power doesn't mean it's not true. On-the-job training is different, you don't need universities specifically, but for most people you do need somebody else involved in your study for you to bounce off. Have you ever had that experience of confidently describing something to someone, and then they ask a question and you grind to a complete halt because you've never considered it before? I certainly have. Likewise I have a friend who is a well-known jazz player and he told me that you can learn to play the instrument by yourself but you'll never get good unless you play with others to force you out of your comfort zone.

The same is true of self-professed skeptics in my experience. Skepticism is good, but my experience somebody who tells you they're a skeptic is likely to be incredibly uncritical of whatever counter-orthodox ideas they've picked up. Again, it's a stereotype that's often cynically deployed to support orthodoxy, but as with race, stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.

The autodidacts that I've known, as well as those online such as Yudowsky. Just because it's a stereotype deployed by the woke to hold onto power doesn't mean it's not true.

I'm open to the possibility of it being true, I'll just need something more than a single example of an internet blowhard. In particular I'll need something, anything that shows they tend to be worse than the average / people who attended college, that doesn't boil down to "trust me bro".

On-the-job training is different, you don't need universities, but for most people you do need somebody else involved.

That already effectively concedes Maiq's point. Keep in mind what he said was:

I’ll be honest that colleges have done an excellent job of conflating the ideas of education and credentials to the point where a sizable percentage of Americans believe that you cannot possibly have learned anything about a subject unless you’ve done so in a university and received a course credit if not a diploma from a university.

None of this implies that he thinks you can get just as good without trying to apply your skill to get a job done, or interacting with others, be it through competition or mentorship.

The same is true of self-professed skeptics in my experience. Skepticism is good, but my experience somebody who tells you they're a skeptic is likely to be incredibly uncritical of whatever counter-orthodox ideas they've picked up

The question would again be if they're worse than average.

I'm open to the possibility of it being true, I'll just need something more than a single example of an internet blowhard. In particular I'll need something, anything that shows they tend to be worse than the average / people who attended college, that doesn't boil down to "trust me bro".

Sure, I was offering my opinion on why people tend to want to see a diploma, I don't expect you or @MaiqTheTrue to fall on your knees and acknowledge that I'm right about everything.

In my opinion, somebody who tells you that they're an expert in X and has no X-related credentials is IMO less likely to know what they're talking about than somebody who has the credentials. There are other relevant signals: significant achievements in X, like making working gizmos using X or having a wife who only speaks X, or being associated with someone who has the reputation for knowing about X, but all else being equal I would be more dubious about auto-didacts than about the conventionally educated. I exclude certain subjects that are so captured and removed from reality that studying them actively makes you less educated (gender studies, etc.) but studying these at home is a bad idea too.

Universities have become bloated providers of unnecessary credentials, I agree. But that doesn't mean that the average person will not get more out of going to a good university than they would out of watching the lectures online. If you're going to tear down Chesterton's Fence, I think it's important to remember what it was put up for.

The same is true of self-professed skeptics in my experience. Skepticism is good, but my experience somebody who tells you they're a skeptic is likely to be incredibly uncritical of whatever counter-orthodox ideas they've picked up

The question would again be if they're worse than average.

I think so. The Hive Mind contains multitudes and usually has to come into contact with reality to some degree. I've known too many skeptics who refuses to believe anything unless it's -1 * conventional wisdom and only get angrier and more alienated with time. Regardless of political orientation, the tendency towards purity spirals is very real.

I’ll point out that I’m not totally against career-related credentials. Their main use is in allowing a business to know whether you have relevant knowledge and skills to do the job or offer advice. It’s basically useful as a way to quickly check your abilities. If I have a CS degree from UCSD, you can look at that and know that if you hired me, I will know the things that are in the UCSD CS program. Useful if you are hiring a professional programmer. It’s vetting your knowledge.

But if you’re not looking to be hired or sell your expertise in literature, the expense of getting certified as knowledgeable in literature doesn’t seem to add much here. It’s nothing that I’m looking to make life or death decisions on, it’s a hobby. Art is a hobby, studying literature is a hobby, philosophy for most people is a hobby. I don’t personally see much added value to getting certified an expert in a hobby.

More comments

In my opinion, somebody who tells you that they're an expert in X and has no X-related credentials is IMO less likely to know what they're talking about than somebody who has the credentials.

Essentially no one is an expert in anything after they just earned their degree, they would only accumulate expertise with age and experience, so attributing expertise to the degree seems like a mistake. I also can't say I met a lot of people unironically calling themselves "experts", probably because it comes off as arrogant even when it's true. The only people I've seen do it tended to be impostor-syndrome-afflicted credential holders (often in subjects of dubious utility to begin with) trying to shut down a conversation.

or having a wife who only speaks X

This in particular is a bad example for credentialism. You don't need to go as far as to marry someone, as a rule someone actually using a language will be better at it than someone studying at a conventional course.

but studying these at home is a bad idea too.

I will once again point out that being an autodidact does not mean you never leave your house when studying a subject.

I think so. The Hive Mind contains multitudes and usually has to come into contact with reality to some degree. I've known too many skeptics who refuses to believe anything unless it's -1 * conventional wisdom and only get angrier and more alienated with time. Regardless of political orientation, the tendency towards purity spirals is very real.

But how is that different from the average person? The only difference I see is that the sign by the conventional_wisdom multiplier is inverted. I guess they're less alienated, but that's to be expected when you're following conventional wisdom.

More comments

If you can self-study to the same level then definitely do it! It takes a lot of self-motivation though. Humans are social creatures and being around other students and professors is the typical way to become invested and excited about your ideas as they'll have more purchase with those around you. The internet and new remote learning models could maybe compensate for some of this but not all.

Then, obviously, the career value of a degree, any degree.

I mean it depends on the goals, but finding or creating a reading group for a bunch of relevant books or on a given topic could probably, given appropriate study materials do at least as well as the median introductory courses are n that subject with the added bonus that unlike the students in most introductory courses, the group using a study guide and meeting to discuss the book are quite likely to have read the material in question. In most of the same courses at university, most students don’t care enough to actually read the text and quite often barely bothered to read the study notes of the text. Most only care in the sense that they want to figure out how to get a decent grade from the course while doing as little work as possible.

And unless you’re going to try to make a career of that subject, it’s probably much better as far as utility goes as instead of spending $100K on a lit degree you can spend the time and money learning career-based skills that allow you to pay off the loans. I don’t think “a degree, any degree” advice really holds anymore. It might have been true in 1970 when going to college was pretty rare and thus “BS in X” was rare enough on a resume to make you stand out. By 2024, college has become the default, and thus “degree in X” is almost expected. In fact, outside of the skilled trades, almost anyone hiring for a liveable wage job expects you to have college, and preferably something that at least signals a practical minded person. At least by getting a skill-based degree and learning about literature or history on your own, you’ll be able to get as good a job as your talents allow rather than having to try to explain to the interviewer how your four years of reading French literature makes you a good fit for the hard nosed number crunching corporate job you’re applying for.

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