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 -
None of that material is remotely difficult to learn and get throught for the first time, if you are a student with no day job or child caring responsibilities that is.
Not that I went to MIT, but the material remains the same even if you study it somewhere else ;-)
I admit trying to learn it between say 2330 and 0000 after being busy all day and having to get up at 6am might be difficult.
Anyone about 100- 115 IQ wise really shouldn't struggle with it if they actually try imho.
Putting SBFs intelligence lower bound as...median..
You severely underestimate how stupid I am š¤£
More options
Context Copy link
MIT is not a plug and chug school. Their goal is to create engineers and scientists who understand the technology they use/manage on a deep level.
Deep understanding of first year undergraduate material?
Deep understanding, as relevant for scientists or engineers, of the stuff previously listed is still quite superficial.
Edit: For clarity, superficial as in a first year undergraduate course as part of training for scientists or engineers.
More options
Context Copy link
I do agree - comparing the deep knowledge in computer science between MIT/CMU/etc grads and even just the next tier of CS universities is night and day - but I was under the impression that much of that happens after freshman year. In which case thisā¦
ā¦makes a bit more sense, even if I think @Azth rather underestimates how much difficulty the average 100-IQ person would have with something like calculus or physics. Like, for someone smart, even something like 15-213 in CMU is possibly doable solo, let alone freshman calculus (not even analysis!), physics, chemistry, and biology.
I guess what I mean is that both of you are kind of right but some statements are kind of wrong? @Azth underestimates the intelligence needed to take those classes without trouble, and you overestimate the deep learning required in such entry level courses, but would nevertheless be on point about the degree generally.
Yes, I can accept that.
Maybe I underestimate the intelligence reuqired - like stokes theorem is brought up by another poster and that is, at a deep level, implcitly obvious and formalising it is straightforward, dare I say trivial so perhaps I fell into the typical mind fallacy trap (although I am retarded).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you really think if you asked a sample of 100 IQ people to learn Stokes' theorem (perhaps with some monetary incentive) to the extent they could describe it and use it in applications that most would be able to?
Yes, once you filter for those who don't know calculus, other prerequisites, have sufficient time, etc. Pay them to learn the prequesites then stokes theorem. I think the main barrier would not be that people can't understand it but that they simply do not care.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link