site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's go back to basics. You already gave a vastly better answer. Did you forget what you said two days ago?

Dawg I have no idea what you are saying, I've been consistent in my messaging with you which is that this stuff is hard and complicated.

You don't seem to want to engage with any of the most important details here which include things like "medicine is not like other fields, maybe it could be but it is not allowed to be - and we have evidence of this!" and "the specific cost is not relevant in any practical sense."

You appear to have forgotten your answer from two days ago. I suggest you go back and re-read your prior comments.

You have made this accusation multiple times, I have consistently maintained that it is fundamentally unknowable (because it is) if you loosen your definitions of knowable you can know some things about it. Additionally, it ultimately is not relevant and not our job, but we do know some things about it anyway.

If you think you "got me" in some way you will need to clarify.

This tack is not helpful, unlike last time I've tried to give examples of things you don't know and would need to know in order to understand the complexity at hand, but you need to actually engage with them. Every example I've given you about how healthcare is not like a car repair shop has been ignored.

Can you remember what your answer was two days ago?

If you think you "got me" in some way you will need to clarify.

Yes. Please see above. Thank you.

If you had a lottery-type game as an option that you could consider playing, and they said, "The payout is $5k with about probability p, and the payout is $1.5M with probability 1-p," would you say that the payout is "fundamentally unknowable"?

Yes.

Expected payout does not equal pay out.

In car repair your estimate may be off by a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. Maybe more than a few thousand dollars at maximum.

In healthcare your estimate can be off by hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

This impacts the wisdom of giving estimates and the validity of the practical validity of those estimates.

And AGAIN you have yet to establish why cost matters. As previously stated repeatedly healthcare workers are often prohibited by law from making decisions based off of cost and often by necessary convention when not prohibited by law. Patients almost never pay cost and are rarely charged it. Why does it matter?

Engage with the substantive and relevant portions of the discussion.

I'm not sure we can proceed much further. You have a highly unorthodox definition of "fundamentally unknowable". You seem to apply it to a thing that I view as incredibly knowable. Perhaps we just have different levels of background in probability and decision theory. Perhaps I should wave my degrees and/or publications around (they do happen to be highly relevant) and say that if you can't answer highly technical questions about probability and decision theory, you don't know anything about what you're talking about? How should I think about how you might feel about that form of argumentation?

healthcare workers are often prohibited by law from making decisions based off of cost

We're talking about patient decisions.

Patients almost never pay cost and are rarely charged it.

This is obviously not true, as evidenced by the constant uproar about medical billing. To repeat myself:

This is an industry that just had two different bills passed by two different congresses and signed by the last two presidents (one of whom is coming back in and may be interested in taking another bite at the apple) specifically because this stuff is a problem. The purpose of this entire thread is because a notable CEO was shot dead in the streets of NYC, possibly because of frustration with these problems; news outlets are reporting people cheering this.

The old saying just happened to pop up in my mind: "The first step is admitting that you have a problem." I'm not quite sure what else it will take for you to realize that your industry has a problem. I hope it's not more assassinations or slap-dash regulations.

More comments