site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One of the most valuable courses I took in college was formal logic. I took two of these classes in community college before transferring to a university and to this day remain the most impactful. Basically Modus Tollens and such.

It fundamentally transformed the way I think more than anything, up until getting into software engineering, which I view as an extension of formal logic.

It would be so great if more people had exposure to such topics. But I don't have any faith that it would make a difference. Most of the people in my classes lamented it, viewed it as incredibly boring and hard, and did the absolute bare minimum to not fail the class.

I fully support the idea of a poll test. Too many of our countrymen are just downright idiots. They should not have a say in what we do as a nation.

It would be so great if more people had exposure to such topics. But I don't have any faith that it would make a difference. Most of the people in my classes lamented it, viewed it as incredibly boring and hard, and did the absolute bare minimum to not fail the class.

And here I'm reminded of Andrea Nye's Words of Power: A Feminist Reading of the History of Logic, written after that sort of bad experience with that sort of logic course, and arguing that "logic" as a whole is a tool of patriarchy, privileging the male way of reasoning over alternative, female ways of thinking. (Noretta Koertge's paper here discusses the book and Nye's arguments in it starting on page 3.)

To agree to some extent with @Glassnoser, how well does teaching logic work? In my experience, you usually don't need anything particularly complex, and it's always been very intuitive to me, such that there hasn't really been a need to precisely identify logical errors or forms. But I get, I guess, that not everyone has the same measure of logical intuition. Can it be taught in an effective manner that leads to an intuitive understanding of logic, without requiring explicit, tedious consideration? What made logic so impactful for you? How did things change?

It was really clarifying to me to be able to codify concepts that I intuitively knew. Which then made it easier to quickly "get" logical arguments and follow lines of argument, identify flaws quicker, etc. These were things my 20 year old self I was fine with before, but learning the formal rules, abstracting arguments into variables, and doing tons of proofs changed the way I engaged with arguments.

When these questions were being posted on Twitter, I saw people derive the answers using formal logic, but I knew what they were intuitively, which is probably the ability they're trying to test for.

It fundamentally transformed the way I think more than anything, up until getting into software engineering, which I view as an extension of formal logic.

An Introduction to Functional Programming Through Lambda Calculus by Michaelson starts from lambda calculus, extends it through logical inference to Lisp to typed ML in a few hundred cozy pages!

How can you know the poll test won't be the equivalent of diversity statements?

It's a good point.