site banner
practical_romantic  2yr ago (text post)   3914 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 23, 2022

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just finished Status and Culture by W. David Marx. I read his previous book, Ametora, about how the Japanese became interested in American clothing, and then, for niche menswear enthusiasts in the States, eventually began selling Americana back across the Pacific.

His latest book was a quick, general interest read that was fun. It looks at how various fashion, artistic, social, and design trends evolve, and the different approaches groups of people utilize to gain local and/or broad status. The examples used to illustrate kept the book interesting, like blue Harvestore-brand silos being status-symbols for prosperous American farmers, despite having defects; how cher and chíc aspic led to the demand for Jell-O, and a horrorshow of now-discarded Jell-O mold cookbooks; the invention of the tuxedo; etc.

Currently working on Guns, Germs and Steel since it was a small part of the Donald McNeil internal-hissyfit at the New York Times. Curious to see what the fuss is about.

Also finished Hermione Lee’s Tom Stoppard biography. Wonderful if you’re a fan of Stoppard’s work. Might be a bit too heavy a tome for casual-interest. But did a fine job of placing Stoppard’s thoughts, interviews and plays in the social, intellectual, artistic and political contexts of their time(s).

Ah, I haven't read Guns, Germs and Steel since AP World History. Great book for that kind of class. I think it's really appealing in a "grand theory" sense, especially as an introduction to that genre of history. I have complicated feelings about grand theorizing, probably due to hanging around this community too long, but it's enjoyable and, as far as I know, plausible.

I’ve read some other geographic-determinist stuff, that overlaps with Mearsheimerian, realist international politics. I think there is merit in the view, though as you say, generalists and grand-theorists of all stripes encounter problems.

Part of GGS is undoubtedly valid and it's a worthwhile read, however he discounts biology and also endorses complete howlers such as that Papuans are smarter than any other race (yes, that).

I’m not all the way through, but is this from the intro? A bit uncharitable to suggest that wasn’t just his enthusiastic assertion of non-Europeans being as smart as Europeans.

He said:

He and I both knew perfectly well that New Guineans are on the average at least as smart as Europeans. [...]

In fact, as I shall explain in a moment, modern "Stone Age" peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples. [...]

That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up.

It is not uncharitable to take people at their word.

He loses all credibility from the get-go.

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