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 -
The paradigm is in the link I provided with clear and detailed evidence – exactly which studies and how they showed that both groups (ivermectin and placebo) had no statistical differences. It is your homework now to see that other group is outside this paradigm.
Right, I'm pretty sure it's still in accordance with the paradigm to make an argument for studies coming to a different conclusion being given more weight / not being excluded, for example. Even if the argument is ultimately wrong, it doesn't follow that it's intellectually lazy.
I understand the temptation to put someone in a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, but "he's guilty, it's your homework to see why" is taking it to another level.
In medicine the evidence is assessed by quality. I don't often do it myself because it takes a lot of time. We work in groups and we have to rely on groups that do good job assessing the quality of the evidence.
If you read the link and go deep, you will find that a lot of evidence about ivermectin is discarded because it was of very low quality.
Now, if some other group wants to change and say that it was actually better than we think, I need to see their reason. I need to see how they arrived to that conclusion, I need to be sure that they did a good job.
Unfortunately in most of the cases they didn't. Even Scott Alexander or Zvi, Hananiah and others do poor job many times. Sometimes they provide reasoning that would even get a poor mark at a university. And I did sometimes get low marks at uni and learned a lot from my mistakes.
My advice is – do your own research but learn to do it properly. Internet is not a good classroom. But some people can be very good with independent study so I don't want to exclude anyone beforehand.
Right, but you're acting like an assessment of "low quality" is the end of conversation, and anyone disagreeing with it is automatically intellectually lazy. It would be music to my ears, because that would mean anyone doubting, say, the Cass Review, gets to have all their opinions disregarded on all other subjects, but it's just not how it works, nor is it how it should work.
You're assuming way too much about me and what I'm saying. My only point is that people disagreeing with you on this aren't automatically intellectually lazy.
Low quality is low quality. Not much point to consider such evidence. I understand that when we have nothing else, we catch to straws but we shouldn't really.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link