site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   31546 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There is a good article on Everything Studies with a nice graph showing how let's say rationalist view reality and how some more humanities inclined people view it. If one accepts the latter framework, then saying reality is socially constructed means the social order is socially shaped as opposed to the physical universe is socially conjured.

To further muddle the waters, many people say that social construction does not mean things are not real. Often used example is money: value of otherwise worthless physical pieces of paper stems from other people giving it value. Money undoubtedly is "socially shaped" but it does not make it unreal meaning that pieces of green paper are an illusion or somehow physically not existing. In that sense claim that race is socially constructed may mean that certain social aspects of race and its impact on daily lives of people is socially shaped even though it is obviously real in a sense that there are people with white skin and people with black skin.

This really is often confusing and even well meaning people may talk past each other. As an example I will use the term science. For somebody it may mean body of knowledge gathered by scientific method. For somebody else it means more philosophy and sociology of science meaning ways how grants are awarded, social processes that steer researchers into certain fields of research more than other fields and so forth. So saying that science is social construct is obviously true as science is done by people and they are working in socially shaped organizations using socially shaped processes. It does not mean that scientific body of knowledge is just some arbitrarily made up stuff. But then again it can be if let's say scientific social processes were driven by racism or whatnot.

Now to be frank, even if I do somewhat understand where social constructionists come from I think their insight has limited value. It would be better to define special terms for what they actually mean so if one says "science" we know if we are talking about scientific body of knowledge or something else. These discussions often take form of sophistry spreading confusion and they paradoxically contribute to the whole social constructivist premise. Which in a sense may be ultimate level of trolling: see, we made scientists say stupid things by sophistry and social pressure. We were right all along except in the past the social pressure was based on racism and misogyny and homophobia!

In that sense claim that race is socially constructed may mean that certain social aspects of race and its impact on daily lives of people is socially shaped even though it is obviously real in a sense that there are people with white skin and people with black skin.

That's the motte.

The bailey is that because race is socially constructed and not scientifically real, we can therefore assume any policy with disparate impact ("class starts at 10AM so show up before 10AM", "math questions have objective answers" or "don't beat up other children") is racist.

I think you have it backwards. The motte is the defensible part

Fixed, thank you.

That, or it may be genuine discussion of what should be considered racism and racist. To go for more benign example take claim like "psychology is science". It is at the same time a claim about what is psychology but also a claim of what properties science should have. Somebody saying "psychology is not science" can disagree with you about properties of psychology and/or properties of science.

And of course as said previously, this can be used as sophistry. You can use word games to become parasitic on some pre-existing meaning or valence of certain word (e.g. racism is bad) in order to either make the new thing (like disparate impact) seem a little bit like the original category (racism), or to change the meaning of the word (racism) a bit - or both at the same time.

While I'm aware of the redefinition of "racism", the bailey I describe isn't that. Lets roll with your psychology example:

  1. Psychological studies have little predictive value and people in the field don't seem very worried about replication or correctness.

  2. Psychology is a science, and science tells us that if you don't do gender affirming care/body positivity/etc, people will do suicides and such.

Now, (1) is just an empirical claim. Point (2) may have some embedded prescriptive linguistics about what "science" should means (I guess not predictions that tend toward accuracy, or correction of errors based on empirics coming out the wrong way).

However, if you noticed, (2) actually has an embedded implicit assumption: namely that science makes predictions which are generally true, unlike critical theory or english literature. And in the psychology case, people don't bring out (2) when folks complain about (1).

We can similarly decompose discussions of racism and HBD:

  1. The reason black people are underrepresented in technology is because black people for biological reasons lack the ability to write code, not race-influenced choices by people in technology.

  2. It is racism to require the ability to code in order to hire someone as a programmer because of the disparate impact.

(1) is an empirical claim, (2) may be a claim about the prescriptive linguistics of "racism". But unlike the psychology case, people do bring out the prescriptive linguistics as if it somehow is relevant to (and refutes) the empirical claim (1). That's the bailey.

Do people really trot (2) out to refute (1) in the racism example? I would expect many people to refute (1) by just saying, "that is racist" and not really even talk about disparate impact or business hiring practices.

No, they trot out "socially constructed" to refute (1). It's crazy to suggest a socially constructed identity would have biological effects, after all.

There are a lot of ways that things can be "real," for some value of real. The Statue of Liberty is a real thing, as it is a actual object in the physical world--reality in the most trivial and literal sense. But there are other legitimate senses of "real"--the US national debt, the number 2, Frodo Baggins, and Alexander Hamilton are all real on various different levels. As you say, the value of a dollar has a legitimate, socially-constructed reality, but so does something like "Donald Trump's reputation"--its exact parameters are highly contested, but no one doubts that "Donald Trump" is real, and that he has a reputation, which is socially constructed from the aggregate of perspectives on his character.

(I would describe "science" as a tool/process/methodology, rather than a body of knowledge.)

Coincidentally Everythingstudies also have a very good article about what real can mean and also how it creates confusion. But here I think is that the distinction is a little bit different: even taking Sherlock Holmes that exists as a fictional character, somebody can say that he also has some other aspects that were socially shaped or that this character himself impacts society in certain way. So if somebody says let's say Sherlock Holmes is racist this can have multitudes of meanings and it is not apparent which one is relevant in context of the discussion: is the character in the novel racist to other characters? Were the novels featuring this character some way perpetuating racism later down the road? Of course it also has to be noted that by playing with words in this way it opens large space of various rhetorical tactics and sophistry.

It is also often a feature, especially if the target of discussion is something else such as social transformation. For instance you can use these words with multiple meanings in order to fish for some hooks that are relevant to your discussion partner, thus finding out which context connects with the other person the best personally - for instance so called Freierian "generative themes". Then you can use other examples and connect it back to the original context, the original theme in a process of recontextualization in order to achieve some other end outside of just discussing ideas. In this sense this vagueness is a feature and not a bug.

Thanks for sharing that article; I thought it was insightful. "X exists" is a particularly slippery phrase, but it's one piece of a larger issue with communication--ultimately, there's a tradeoff between efficiency and precision, and the various aspects of language exist to manage that balance.

Indeed, in fine detail, various languages manage specific micro-equilibria differently, due to local conceptions of where efficiency can be sacrificed to precision, or vice versa.

English pronouns traditionally distinguish among first/second/third person, singular/plural, sex in the third person singular but not elsewhere, subject/object/possessive/reflexive, and so forth. Sometimes combinations of distinctions exist, and sometimes not: "you" is clearly second person, but ambiguously singular or plural--or subject/object, for that matter, it's all context-determined --whereas "I/we/me/us" retains both the singular/plural and subject/object distinctions.

There's a language--I forget exactly where, but I want to say Southeast Asia or Australia?--that has a distinction in its pronouns that English lacks: two different senses of "we," each with its own pronoun. In one sense, "we" includes the person or people being spoken to, in that "you and I" are part of "we." In the other sense, it does not, in that "you" are not part of "we."

"Are we in agreement?" includes the people being spoken to. "We are going to the store; do you want to come with us?" does not, but English uses the same word. The people using this language felt that there was a valuable distinction that justified maintaining two words here; English speakers generally don't even notice the same ambiguity.

Indonesian has that, and I always thought it was a super-useful concept.

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