site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   25743 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.

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.

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.

Understood.

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.

Lots of people say things like, "But you don't need stained glass and statues to worship God, we're going to sell all that stuff and give it to the poor," and then it turns out that very few people are inspired by praying in a concrete Brutalist box or at home next to the washing machine.

I'm a smells-and-bells man by nature. I think that rituals, milestones and that kind of thing are important. They inspire us and draw us on. In an ideal world, going away to learn about literature, to spend time with other people learning about literature, under the tutelage of somebody wise who knows a lot about literature, to finally face a tough-but-not-insurmountable challenge and then be able to call yourself "a doctor/master/teacher of literature" has value that cannot be captured by reading at home, however diligently.

Where we went wrong was in allowing that ritual and that earned credential to become coinage for a career. A degree ended up being proof that you were a thinking, diligent person, and like all metrics it became a target. The difficulty was reduced, to stop people ruining their careers by getting low grades; there weren't enough good teachers, etc.

I’m not objecting if you A) have the means and time, and B) don’t need a credential to get a good paying job. But I think the number of people who would meet those criteria are pretty small, especially those who would at the same time want or need the kind of bragging rights that having a degree would provide are small. People spend thousands traveling as well, it’s just that this isn’t generally seen as the best option for everyone.

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.

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.

Yes, okay, but you know what I mean. Absent proof of mastery, having a credential from a reputable institution is usually a good sign that you know what you're talking about, and taking a structured course on something will teach most people more than leaving the course material online. You can disagree with this if you like, or dig up some empirical evidence either way, but there it is.

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

Yes. I'm giving it as a non-credential sign that someone knows what they are talking about.

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

It often does, though. Studying something at home is usually the hobby of the nerdy introvert. I'm not throwing shade, I learned a language at home for fun.

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.

I believe that even now conventional_wisdom is broadly better than its inverse. Not great, but better. Look, I've got in significant trouble for wrongthink in the past; I've also known skeptics whose skepticism basically ate at them like a virus. The weirder their opinions got, the more alienated they became. The more alienated they became, the more they actively sought out beliefs that would repel the normies, and the more personally they took any criticism of those beliefs. Someone who actively rejects vast tranches of what we know about physics, history, economics, biology in favour of random stuff they found online is either an autodidact genius beyond compare, or crazy.

EDIT: It strikes me that this conversation is both too wide-ranging and too vague to shed much light. Studying at university can mean any one of: getting a PhD in Material Sciences, doing a semester on classical philosophers, getting a 'Doctorate' in Education, or a BA in English. There are different dynamics here. I would trust someone with a recent PhD on Shakespeare less than I would trust somebody with a BA in Eng. Lit. from 20 years ago, I would trust someone with a STEM more than someone without, etc.

Yes, okay, but you know what I mean. Absent proof of mastery, having a credential from a reputable institution is usually a good sign that you know what you're talking about,

I don't think I do. Again this whole conversation started when Maiq said that universities did a good job convincing people the only way you can master a subject is by attending a structured course or getting a degree. Your pushback implies that universities are right to do so, and that people who claim to have learned without them tend to overestimate their skill level. That's the bit I'm calling out, and arguments about how degrees are still carrying a useful signal (if you hide all other meaningful signals) does nothing to address my issue. Sure, a university us a place where you can master a subject. It's not the only place.

and taking a structured course on something will teach most people more than leaving the course material online.

That's already a completely different claim. I'd say it's more true than the original one, but even then I'm not sure it's as true as you believe. Lots of people cram for the exam, without understanding anything about the essence of the subject, and forget everything the moment they pass. Of the ones that actually understand what they study, it's an open question how many are taking a structured course precisely because universities did such a good job convincing people the only way you can master a subject.

It often does, though. Studying something at home is usually the hobby of the nerdy introvert. I'm not throwing shade, I learned a language at home for fun.

Ok, picking up a hobby that involves learning something in your off hours is not exactly what I'd called being an autodidact. I rotate between various hobbies that involve me dicking around with stuff and learning things as a result, but none of these are what I'd call being an autodidact. In my opinion the latter involves a deliberate attempt to actually master a skill.

As for learning languages at home, I suppose I walked I right into it, but this is just pedantry. All your arguments boiled down to the necessity of feedback, which I agree with, but thanks to the glories of modern technology, learning a language at home as a nerdy introvert doesn't actually get in the way of getting feedback from other people.

I believe that even now conventional_wisdom is broadly better than its inverse. Not great, but better.

Ok, but originally you made it sound like there's some flaw in the skeptic's reasoning that the average person doesn't fall for. If there is one, I don't see it, they both have the same flawed reasoning, it's just that one of them backed the wrong horse (and even that is not always true, just in (hopefully) the majority of cases). The conventional_wisdom enjoyer doesn't deserve credit for correct reasoning if all he does is follow the crowd, any more than a habitual contrarian deserve's it for his "skepticism",

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