site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31959 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

These results do not surprise me . It would seem like thinness is positively corelated with almost all metrics of success . Maybe IQ plays some role, in that thinner people are smarter, which could account for success at a wide variety of things. I have noticed that it seems like there are few fat 'STEM people', particularly in physics and math, compared to other areas (the stereotypical fat feminist).

No, overweight men earn more than slim men

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8468324/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46379465_When_It_Comes_to_Pay_Do_the_Thin_Win_The_Effect_of_Weight_on_Pay_for_Men_and_Women

are few fat 'STEM people', particularly in physics and math, compared to other areas (the stereotypical fat feminist).

Feminists control minds. Physics and math men are near bottom of ladder and full of incels.

No, overweight men earn more than slim men

Looking just at your first study, it appears not to control for age which I would say is a fatal error. As people get older two things happen. First, they tend to move up the ladder of whatever career they have chosen, earning more money because they are more experienced. They also tend to transition to more sedentary jobs, especially if their field originally was more active in the lower rungs. Which leads directly into the second effect, they get fatter. I have a sneaking suspicion that the male half of this study accidentally found a correlation between age and income, not weight and income.

It would seem like thinness is positively corelated with almost all metrics of success . Maybe IQ plays some role, in that thinner people are smarter, which could account for success at a wide variety of things

If that is true then I bet that it is in general correlated with willpower and ability to control yourself, maybe with ability to plan long-term.

More likely the correlation here is something like, if you're serious about making money as an escort you're going to keep your body in peak condition. If you're doing it as a lark to make ends meet, that's one thing, but if you're trying to maximize earnings you're going to get on that treadmill. So BMI probably correlates with a smart fitness plan probably correlates with a whole pile of other similar profit maximizing strategies.

Yeah, that's a possible cofounder. A very small correlation between BMI and income could instead appear as a huge correlation if those that are actively seeking to maximize income correctly identify that they need to have a BMI of 20, and those that aren't maximizing income don't bother. However, "smart fitness plan" probably just means eating less. It's BMI that's being measured here, not muscle mass.

That's why I went with "fitness" rather than "workout," but yeah, BMI is really just weight, which for the vast majority of humans is really just fat.

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that BMI correlates that well, I've dated some short women blessed in the "weight goes to tits/ass" department who would have lost out on BMI while still having abs, but I've also never paid any money to a prostitute so I'm not really in the sample anyway.

deleted

I... don't know what to say about this. In fact it goes against every stereotype I have about these groups.

It goes against every observation I have of these groups, too.

It's not that I've never seen a thin (non-Asian) STEMer, but I certainly see fewer thin STEMers than thin artistés.

And while "fat feminists" are a thing -- there are certainly overweight women who identify as feminists -- there are also plenty of thin feminists

This is just a truism though, isn't it. "There are both fat and thin feminists", sure, inevitable. The pertinent question is whether or not the distribution is skewed, and I would be very surprised if it wasn't.

It's not that I've never seen a thin (non-Asian) STEMer, but I certainly see fewer thin STEMers than thin artistés.

Isn't this the reverse of what you wrote above:

I have noticed that it seems like there are few fat 'STEM people', particularly in physics and math, compared to other areas (the stereotypical fat feminist).

Who is the fattest poet laureate?

I have coworkers that weigh twice what some Nobel laureates weigh. There's a great abundance of fat engineers.

Before I wrote my post I spent a good 5 minutes racking my mind trying to think of counterexamples... I can only recall one professor (an Indian guy...cannot recall his name) who has a Wikipedia page.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats