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 -
This. Only modelling the world on realized, actual outputs leads to very sub-optimal models.
You observe A asking B out for a date and getting rejected. You conclude that A likes to get rejected.
You observe C playing the lottery, and losing. You conclude that C just has a strict preference for having less money.
You observe D playing a round of Russian roulette, and surviving. You conclude that D is showing no signs of self-harming behavior since the outcome was harmless.
It is generally better to model agents (humans, armies, chess programs, dogs, ASIs, ...) as have their own world view and a utility function, and ascribe intent to their actions. If your system is larger, than game theory and Moloch enter the picture. And outcomes remain highly relevant, of course.
You want to be able to say "this non-effective charity is trying to do X, but only accomplishing that k times per 1M$ of donations, while that charity is accomplishing X n times per 1M$ of donations, so we should raise the question if there is some incongruity between their stated mission and their actual behavior, or if they operate under additional constraints". Perhaps after further investigation you will conclude that the charity is actually just a business selling the warm fuzzy feeling of doing good to their donors, and their agents are either cynical or in denial about that.
Or take my alchemist searching for the philosopher's stone while inhaling a lot of mercury vapor. You want to point at the fact that he is not succeeding in finding the stone. It could be that he is really into inhaling mercury, or that searching for the stone is just a high status occupation, but it is also possible that he is genuinely trying to find it as hard as he can, and simply operates under a different world model.
More options
Context Copy link