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 -
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.
Yes. I'm giving it as a non-credential sign that someone knows what they are talking about.
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.
I believe that even now
conventional_wisdomis 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.
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.
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.
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.
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_wisdomenjoyer 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",More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link