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 -
But you try, and that is worthy of respect, just as it sounds like she is if she gave it with the spirit and intentions you received it with.
Bi- or multi-lingualism is something many people do, but it's always worthy of respect all the same. Especially if you could get away in your life without it, or move too often to justify it, and even more so if you try later in life than earlier. Deliberate learning after your formative years is even harder, but putting in hard work to improve yourself is always meritorious.
To paraphrase a parable- a polygot who picked up every language with ease is less impressive than a bi-lingual who did it with much difficulty, because what impresses are things that are hard, not easy.
Kudos to you, and feel no shame.
(Plus, sometimes you get some funny dynamics if you try to learn via media you already somewhat know. Think 'spanish Harry Potter,' or 'Mexicans love Dragon Ball Z.')
This is similar to Scott's "Parable of the Talents", where he feels that his C- in Calculus that he had to sweat blood and tears for is more praiseworthy than his world-class essays that just appear whenever he has free time because he was born with incredible writing talent.
I... disagree? This kind of thinking is like the labor-theory of value for personal accomplishment. It matters the quality of the output you create, not how much effort you put in it.
Ah, but I am not talking the quality of the output created- I am talking about the characteristic of the type of person who tries to improve themself at something they are bad at.
If quality of output / task mattered, then no, I wouldn't select this person to be the person to do that task. And if I needed specifically someone who could improve in a certain way, I would indeed select for that person. But I am not- I have no task for SubstantialFrivolity, and am making no sort of employment decision on the basis of this skill.
I would, however, have a much better opinion of employing someone like SubstantialFrivolity for a task they are already good at, even over an equivalently skilled person who I lack any other insight into.
The capacity for self-improvement at the cost of personal shame, of things one doesn't already find fun or is already proficient at, is in and of itself a quality for a person, and part of that is their willingness to accept the possible humiliation of struggling to do things that other people find easy. Embarrassment at one's limitations are an easy out / excuse / reason for people to avoid self-improvement, whether it's the person who insists they are too fat to start running, too weak to start building mental strength, too dumb to start studying, to friendless to work on their social skills, and so on. This gets particularly obstructive if you justify it on relative grounds- there is always someone better, and always will be someone better, so why try when you will be inevitably embarrassed or humiliated or shamed?
SubstantialFrivolity is the type of who has the requisite mix of humility to face their limitation rather than ignore it, bravery to admit to it even on a forum filled with often high-IQ egotists who would cringe at being characterized as less capable than a child, and persistence to push through with it anyway. He also, if it can be believed, is lucky, and has found a partner with the grace to support him in his efforts rather than one who would belittle or shame or do nothing, which itself implies various other things- being the sort of person someone would want to spend time with, the sort of person their friends would go out of their way to help, possible multi-cultural comfort, and so on.
If I wanted to make a hiring decision, these are a lot of good traits that would immediately make someone more appealing over someone who may have the same or even higher posted skills but not the same commitment to self-improvement. Would that other person be as capable of relearning old skills for new systems when their previous metrics can't apply? Could that person learn a new skill set as the needed flexibility in a team? Would that person have the bravery to admit mistakes / failures / things that made them look bad, or would they let them stew for weeks and months until it becomes a worse problem?
SubstantialFrivolity isn't worthy of respect because he would be a preferred spanish reader for a job. SubstantialFrivolity isn't even worthy of respect because he could be preferrable for a non-spanish reading job. SubstantialFrivolity is worthy of respect for being the sort of person to internalize the value of self-improvement even when it exposes him to risk of shame, which itself implies other virtues worthy of respect.
@SubstantialFrivolity, keep on keeping on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link