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 -
And the CIA really did have an occult warfare unit for curses, hexes and remote viewing.
The real issue with that line of the table is that "the military" is very much not a ruthlessly efficient capitalist enterprise, and accusing the CIA of being such is downright laughable. It is hard to imagine an organization less accountable to its supposed stakeholders.
It still casts doubt on XKCD’s central thesis though. “Lol well if it’s real why isn’t the military using it? Checkmate.” Well they did or at least spent a lot of effort and taxpayer money trying.
But that's not XKCD's central thesis. I think Randall would be the first to point out that the public sector routinely wastes fortunes on useless extravagances or projects which were doomed to failure from the outset, whereas private sector companies that devote too large a share of their budget to such projects eventually go bankrupt.
The claim is not "no companies are investigating this to see if it works, therefore it mustn't be real"; the claim is "if it was real, at least one company would have found a way to make money out of it". Even if you expand it to include public sector bodies, Randall's argument still holds: it's not "no companies (or public sector bodies) are investigating this to see if it works, therefore it mustn't be real"; the claim is "if it was real, at least one company (or public sector body) would have found a way to make use out of it, either by making money or by securing a competitive advantage".
If that was his point he wouldn’t have mentioned the military.
I think it's reasonable to conclude that the CIA (despite their best efforts!) never succeeded in securing a huge, unanswerable competitive advantage over their enemies using remote viewing. (One presumes if they had a functioning remote viewing unit in the 1970 or 80s, it would have taken them less than ten years after 9/11 to track down bin Laden.) The fact that they spent a fortune on something that didn't work proves nothing. Thus, Randall's thesis holds.
Or maybe remote viewing is 100% real, but the CIA doesn't have a huge, unanswerable competitive advantage over their enemies because those enemies have their own remote viewing programs.
What can I say, other than that I think a world in which every major power had a remote viewing program would look radically different from the one which we currently inhabit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What makes you think the CIA wanted to track down their “former” asset and comrade in arms? The one who’s existence justified all those lovely imperialistic wars? Even without remote viewers, they had a ton of other resources that they were aggressively not using to find him.
The fact that they did, in fact, eventually assassinate him.
Yes, after the wars got unpopular and the State Department’s geopolitical interest in the Middle East started to wane and pivot to Asia, they certainly found him and wrapped things up right quick.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did they (or the Soviets) accomplish anything of note using said unit?
Supposedly.
This article doesn't even credit the CIA's remote viewing unit for accomplishing this. It says the CIA consulted a psychic, which to me sounds like the CIA paid someone who wasn't a staff member.
I think at least some of the people in the "CIA remote viewing unit" were on a contract basis. As I understand it, the intelligence agencies (reasonably!) had a lot of questions about if remote viewing was a thing that would work, so at least part of their M.O. was to go out and get people who were supposed to be good as psychic stuff and test them. I don't think this involved making them full-time employees. Maybe you wouldn't consider them part of the "CIA's remote viewing unit" even if they were getting tasked by the CIA (or whoever) to do remote viewing as part of the ongoing remote viewing project, I dunno.
Obviously Jimmy Carter is reporting something somewhat vaguely that he wasn't directly involved in, and perhaps the CIA went and got a psychic in a manner that was completely unrelated to the ongoing investigations into remote viewing, I haven't dug into it. The entire saga of the government's remote viewing project is kinda convoluted to me and I don't claim to be very familiar with the ins-and-outs of it – it moved around between different agencies and departments, with different sources of funding, and then was supposedly shut down, and then some people who were supposedly former staffers then came out and talked about the program, and who knows if they are telling the truth or not.
But that seems to me, off the top of my head, as the best example of "the CIA used a psychic to accomplish a tangible intelligence task" that seems somewhat credible because Jimmy Carter verified it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The remote viewing program supposedly did. They identified a new type of Soviet nuclear submarine before it was deployed and before any other intel sources knew about it. They also found the location of an American general that had been kidnapped by a left-wing paramilitary in Italy. They were used to locate Iraqi surface to air missile sites during the Gulf War, with partial but incomplete success.
The occult warfare program (MK OFTEN) is more heavily classified and we know less about it. Probably for good reason: based on the personnel it employed it likely involved human sacrifice. In any case, it was probably being used for missions that would be illegal or violations of international law regardless of the method used to achieve them.
Both of these programs have ostensibly been shut down. That could definitely be true, but there are a lot of intelligence agency programs that get “shut down” and moved somewhere else before the congressional subcommittee hearings can kick into gear.
I don’t really know anything specific about the Soviet program if they had one.
Do you have a source for the remote viewing program?
Isn't the more parsimonious explanation that the CIA discovered the new Soviet submarine, the location of the general etc by other means, and attributed them to their remote viewing unit as a cover story? (See also the British Department of War covering up the existence of radar, using the cover story that British anti-aircraft gunners were able to spot Luftwaffe planes because they had exceptional eyesight as a result of eating lots of carrots.)
There’s an entire non-fiction book about it called The Men Who Stare at Goats. Regarding your point, I definitely don’t rule it out, but I would think if they were going to do that they would pick a less ridiculous cover explanation.
Doesn't sound significantly more ridiculous to me than "eating lots of carrots enables you to spot fighter jets from miles away, at night".
The other possible explanation is that after the A-Bomb, both the US and the USSR were willing to throw a lot of money at things that sound like bunk on the small off-chance that they’re not. A lot of Nazi German higher ups thought that nuclear weapons were fanciful sci-fi bullshit or intentional misinformation planted by Jewish physicists, and they got screwed out of a potential war-winner as a result. And magic might be especially tempting in that regard, since you don’t need a gigantic, Manhattan Project-tier investment to give it a try.
Yes, I think is is precisely what happened.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Correct. Seems like the Soviets did as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link