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 is kinda sneery but I've always wondered how the IQ realists here square the fact that high IQ is more corelated with liberalism than with any marker of social success; and that low IQ is more corelated with conservatism than with any marker of failure (other than getting charged for felonies).
I guess it just sucks to suck
Specifically, IQ is positively correlated with classical liberalism. As a classical liberal, this doesn't bother me much.
The only (self selected and unrepresentative) survey of political opinions of extremely high IQ individuals (150+IQ) is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Nine_Society
Rather dated, but it is the only thing I could find.
http://milesresearch.com/tns/summary.htm
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IQ is corelated with socio-economic status, which is heavily correlated with ideological compliance since they intellgently intuit what's good for their careers and social advancement (though such a motive is disproportionately the subject of self-delusion).
The high-IQ in the Soviet Union disproportionately became Party Members.
The High-IQ in Medieval europe disproportionately held non-heretical beliefs.
The High-IQ in Imperial japan disproportionately worshipped the emperor.
The High-IQ in Nazi Germany disproportionately supported the Fuher.
The High-IQ in Saudi Arabia disproportionately support Wahhabi Islam.
The High-IQ in China disproportionately support "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics".
And the High-IQ in the US disproportionately support "Liberal Democracy"...and will endorse whatever economic and political system the US has as "liberal democracy" until someone in authority tells them those aren't the words they're using for the regime anymore.
They'll support "Our democracy" and the "liberal international order" no matter if a majority of the people oppose it, and no matter if it tramples every single liberty and free market norm ever referred to as "liberal"
More options
Context Copy link
Most IQ realists tend to be liberals themselves, if only because they are aware that their views are very unpopular and vulnerable to censorship. But it's worth noting that high IQ does not necessarily mean having a correct ideology. The highest-IQ Europeans of a thousand years ago spent their intelligence on elaborate proofs for the existence of God. A hundred and fifty years ago, eugenics and scientific racism were the mainstream ideology. If intelligent people nowadays spend their grey matter on writing diversity statements rather than studying astrology, that reflects simply a change in fashion and culture.
This is very sneery.
More options
Context Copy link
What are you basing this off of?
Given that white liberals are on average richer and better educated than white conservatives, it’s probably true that once you adjust for race there’s probably a correlation between having a higher IQ and voting D. But it’s a much stronger claim you’re making, and I’d like to see the evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
It's low IQ to assume that trends studied in America extrapolate to all humans everywhere across all times, especially in the domain of politics.
But IQ is correlated with trait openness which correlates with liberal temperament. Liberal in the "more free exchange of everything, including ideas liberal" sense.
That does not imply Woke "liberals", who are quite hostile to the free exchange of new ideas.
In short, the word liberal refers to a thousand things. And if you are gonna try to gotcha people, you need to be more clear about it.
More options
Context Copy link
In elizabethan england, having a high IQ was correlated with the queen's court, probably. It's possible for smart people to be wrong! Also see how half of the first post in 'open minded progressives' is just shitting on conservatives. Conservatives are wrong too!
this seems to evoke a study or poll or something. What study or poll? It'd be kinda weird if IQ is more strongly associated with being a liberal than things that are determined by standardized test scores like college admission, income, etc, although that might be explained by liberalism being continuous while 'social outcomes' being relatively binary.
More options
Context Copy link
One, rather liberal, answer is that conservatism is based on relatively unsophisticated heuristics for minimizing risk from novelty, exposure to outsiders and attempts at independent thinking – things beneficial for navigating modern society. Smarter people tend to be confident that they're better than that, and they're kinda right (thus, left).
Another, rather illiberal, answer is that IQ is relevant because it predicts comprehensive success at navigating society, from school to retirement. One of the most important components of such a success is generally avoiding pissing off people stronger than you. IQ is required to figure out their preferences regarding your behavior and modify it accordingly. In most cases it's far too frustrating and cognitively taxing to maintain a separate personality and worldview that's grounded in selfish preferences and unbiased exploration, so the mask becomes the face and people contort themselves into the form expected of them on the inside as well. «IQ realists» tend to be disagreeable, and are either good enough to maintain appearances while saying their true beliefs on anonymous forums, or don't care about the cost, or think they can afford it.
Would there have been a cost for you to be an IQ realist in Russia?
Not as much as in the West/US, probably – I've always been open about this aspect of my views when asked, and, being able to argue for them politely and with discretion, got decent reception in most groups worth mentioning.
It may be a transient thing, the blessing of Millenials, the only generation that knew a sliver of freedom. Among zoomers and alphas there is growing (I believe) opprobrium evoked by beliefs coded as racist and "chud", because in a sense we are all living in America; and old people are of course influenced by the Soviet Marxist dogma (even though they overwhelmingly do not identify as Marxists), which is identical to the modern American dogma with regards to population differences and expected returns to nurture vs. nature.
IQ specifically is something of a dirty word, which is often justified with a reference to an article «The very best IQ test» by mathematician Vasiliev that made fun of test items in an error-filled translation of Eysenck's popular book «Test your IQ». I gather the original was also bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Imposing a literacy test for voting would show us dumb hicks whose boss. Just look at all those graphs reddit likes to post about how uneducated southern red states are.
Surely that policy would result in a Blue Wave, right?
More options
Context Copy link
This is low effort / boo outgroup. Its also not the kind of thing for a top level comment. 3 day ban. Don't do this.
More options
Context Copy link
Can you name some of "the IQ realists here"? If so, would you care to guess at, say, how many of them voted for George W. Bush in 2000, or Romney in 2008?
More options
Context Copy link
You must be new to the IQ literature. Research shows high IQ is correlated with fiscal conservativism and that republicans have higher iqs than dems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081
Indeed given the demographics involved this is hardly surprising. Sucks to suck, for sure
Don't respond to trollish, rule-breaking posts with trollish, rule-breaking posts of your own.
I’m merely correcting the record. Not sure how citing data accurately makes me trollish
This:
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