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 -
Logic games involve some non verbal thinking. I miss the lsats.
I heard they abolished the logic games?
They did? That’s disappointing. It’s been a long time since I took the LSAT.
Someone on Reddit said it was because it was impossible/unreasonably difficult for blind candidates.
That sucks for them but you can’t let a small minority dictate to the vast majority
The Americans with Disabilities Act says you must.
Pretty sure it says you have to make reasonable accommodations.
"Reasonable accommodations" are whatever the activists say they are, and fighting about it in court will cost a lot of time and money. It makes far more sense just to bend the knee right away, because you're going to have to anyway.
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
Logic games were the best part of the LSAT, distinguishing the truly smart from those who merely had very good reading comprehension. This is just the general miasma of enshittification seeping into where ever it can get to.
Logic games were easy and consistently the section where the better candidates were most likely to score 100%. Much like the GMAT, it’s the verbal section that captured the tails of the IQ range, as befits a test to determine who would be a good lawyer, rather than a good accountant. It’s actually hard to design g-loaded non-verbal tests that don’t merely devolve into tests of mathematical knowledge, which isn’t really the same thing. Reading comprehension and the word substitution questions (ie verbal IQ tests) are smarts, and it’s increasingly clear that the most successful people are luckier on the verbal IQ front than on the spatial one.
Interesting, I've never taken the LSAT personally but distinctly recall Logic Games as being the section that prompted the most complaints from people, which made me think they were the hardest part on the real test because they caused so much uproar (most I've done is a bunch of practice questions online to get an idea of what the test is like and yes on those the games weren't particularly hard compared to the other stuff, but I attributed that to the sorts of questions I like rather than as commentary on their objective difficulty). You can absolutely make logic games very hard, back in the day some newspapers in their daily comics and puzzles section had logic games esque problems that could take up to hours to solve.
I'd heard that they were the hardest with no preparation (at least, to do quickly enough—since there's a 100% verifiable answer, it's easy to be accurate), but the most gameable—they were formulaic enough that if you learn the right techniques about how to organize your approach you could improve your score more easily than you could on any other section.
Yes, seasoned LSAT preparers who had been grinding practise tests since the age of 15 (and who were also very smart) almost always maxed them out - in fact on the forums they were seen as low hanging fruit on the road to a perfect 180 or near-perfect 179. The other sections are more g-loaded and therefore harder to improve at.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The test I took had a ridiculously hard logic game that I am convinced was an unscored test question. It wasn't hard in an absolute sense, I think most people with decent intelligence given infinite time could eventually solve all the questions. But it had way more rules than any of my practice questions. I think I got most of them right because I accurately recognized it as very time consuming and skipped the question section, then went back at the end. And I usually finish standardized tests with 50% of the time to spare, give or take 10%. So I basically spent 50% on this silly figurines on a bookshelf subset, and aced the logic section (but I still think I could have scored zero and gotten that score because I dont think that section counted).
Anyways, I agree that the logic games were a good part of the LSAT, much like analogies on the SAT. As is par for the course, modern DEI is bad for quality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link