site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   33830 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is fun to think about, but while this only applies to software engineering, the gist of the most recent and comprehensive study I've seen is that:

  • WFH orgs have the most top tier talent (> 1x engineers) but far more "ghost engineers" (<.1x)
  • On the balance, WFH orgs have less overall output

We'll see how it pans out, but if any industry is ripe for WFH fraud it absolutely has to be the government.

The crux of such a study would be in how you're defining output or productivity. Is that lines of code and is more lines good? What is the equivalent in other fields, how is it being measured, etc.

The twitter thread shows the methodology. Please actually read it.

It's my industry, so I think it's as good as it can reasonably be.

Twitter is so useless these days. Why lock threads behind an account?

It's my industry, so I think it's as good as it can reasonably be.

How well do you think it translates to other jobs?

Sorry, I did not consider that you didn't have an account. I personally think it's worth having one to lurk. It's still a great source of info.

Here's the image describing it but to summarize, the methodology uses an AI model trained by experts about "meaningful" commits. In other words, not Lines of Code, which I agree is an imperfect metric at best.

How well do you think it translates to other jobs?

Probably well, on the balance. First, it's probably the profession best positioned to be analyzed in terms of measuring output. Second, if any job can be effectively executed in a WFH context, it has to be software. There's no other industry with more capabilities to deliver value remotely. This is probably the absolute best case for WFH advocacy. Even the sub-disciplines near software engineering like product ownership are even more hilariously ripe for grift.

As I mentioned in another comment, I am a big WFH advocate. It's made my life measurably better, and the company I work for deals with its benefits and drawbacks very well.

But I think most places are not, and very few (no?) frontline workers are interested in being honest about the downsides.

It might not be as bad as the study suggests -- working from home might turn those -1x engineers (who would be measured as "productive") into 0.1x engineers.

That would make the study's conclusions even "worse" in terms of proving that WFH is bad for most software shops.

It's pretty intuitive and not that complicated. The best engineers have an enormous amount of leverage. They can demand the best and most flexible jobs, and can be so effective in less time that they can take the most advantage of WFH while still providing high value.

The grifters who benefit from low accountability will also gravitate to those positions.

I work for a high-performing organization that is extremely WFH friendly. We have many elite engineers and have built our culture around it. Even so, we have to fire grifters every once in a while.

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