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 -
No, this is where they take off their rubber. SCNR.
There is also a small niche between HAT-BAT and HAT-ARF which are polygynist cultures.
I do not think that it is hard for a billionaire to have a lot of biological children. I mean, sperm banks are a thing, and unless Musk being a jerk is genetic, his genome does not appear to have any big downsides. If he is willing to pay 1M$ in child benefits for any child born from a sperm donation of his, he will likely have more applicants than either his bank account or his testicles can support -- even now that he is enemy number two in coastal cities. For any less controversial billionaire, the advantage would be even clearer: Having the owner of IKEA (or whatever) as your biological father and getting a million might seem like a better deal than having a Nobel laureate as your biological father and getting a signed copy of his autobiography. For lesbian or male-infertile hetero couples, or single mothers to be, that advantage is even bigger: a genetic intelligence benefit will take decades to pay off at best, while a grant might let you move into a bigger flat right away.
Perhaps this is how the widening gap between capital and labor can be overcome (now that we are no longer having world wars). But I don't think most billionaires will go for it.
In rationalist fiction, there exist at least two versions of that trope: one is The Comet King from Unsong, who only stops making babies when it is prophesied that his children will die cursing his name, the other is Keltham from Planecrash/Project Lawful (whose character might be influenced by Musk), who has a goal to make 100 (or so) babies but is somehow unhappy when his harem conspires to make that a reality for complicated plot reasons.
A grandson carries 25% of the grandfather's genes, on average. Genghis Khan may have been genetically successful, but not to the point where he contributes 25% of the DNA to billions.
The fact is that the number of possible ancestors increases exponentially with the generation.
Wikipedia. If his Y chromosome was carried by 16M people in 2003 CE, then he would have had to spread it to about 1M people ca 1200 CE assuming his ethnic group grew in proportion to the world average. This seems hard to accomplish. If he had 100 sons, and 10k grand-sons, and 1M great-grand-sons, sure. I can totally buy him having 100 sons, but likely not by legitimate wives. If you are the legitimate son or grand-son of Genghis Khan, then you likely have good reproductive opportunities. However, if you were fathered when Genghis Khan raped some peasant woman, your reproductive opportunities are likely below the average of your society, as most societies were somewhat patriarchal at that time and being a bastard would put you near the bottom of the social ladder. Or he had 30 legitimate sons (plausible), and they had 30 legitimate sons in turn (unlikely), and they each fathered 1k sons through wartime rape (utterly implausible).
The HBD position, supported by his father (and possibly one of his brothers - all I know about Kimbal Musk is that he and Elon got into literal fistfights over disagreements at X) being a jerk, is that Musk being a jerk is genetic.
I think it's genetic.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think HBDers have a set position on that one. A lot of HBDers I've talked to online tend towards a perspective that views intelligence and trivial phenotypic traits as heritable, but stops short at personality. You see this discussed a lot with respect to Jews.
That makes me think HBDers aren't better informed about behavioral genetics than their scientific critics.
(For anyone interested in behavioral genetics, Kathryn Paige-Harden's - or whatever the correct spelling of her name is - "The Genetic Lottery: [Something Something Social Justice]" is good, and it lives up to its subtitle, i.e., she addresses the implications, she just has an opposing point of view to many HBDers. No comment on my own point of view.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link