site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32258 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am not claiming that chinese do not look different from vietnamese or koreans. I am claiming that chinese men do not look similar enough to each other that an average of all chinese male faces gives more accurate data about a particular male chinese face than the text string "chinese male". the picture contains more detail, but that detail is not accurate to the actual face in question, and may in fact be notably inaccurate. In short, my prior is that members of a race do not, in fact, all look alike.

But my point is not that a picture of a generic Chinese male gives more information than the text string "Chinese male." My point is that a picture of a generic Chinese male gives more information than the text string, "Asian male." Because that is the analogy to the initial claim, which was that the picture, which is a generic picture of a guy whose DNA indicates ancestry from a specific part of Africa, is no better than the text string, "a black guy." That is what OP said: "all it really tells you is 'it was a black guy.'"

That makes more sense, but I'm still skeptical. Does the added specificity of an ethnic average face move people closer to a specific subject's face, or further away? I would expect the latter, but am open to the idea that I'm wrong. I think if I was on the run for a crime, I'd rather the cops be circulating a picture of the average Caucasian mutt than a generic description, because I would expect the generic description to prime people to suspect me more than an averaged picture.

Mostly, it sounds like a pretty good PhD for someone who wants to test the theory...

I think the problem is that there are risks of both false positives and false negatives, and there is generally a tradeoff re reducing one versus reducing the other. When you say that the added specificity might move people further from a specific suspect, I take that to mean that it increases the risk of a false negative. But the added specificity decreases the risk of a false positive.

There is also the practical issue of which is more likely to prompt citizens to report their suspicions to police. "The suspect is a black male" reduced the risk of a false negative, but it is useless if it does not result in reports from citizens. That description applies to my doorman, but it is not going to cause me to report his as a potential suspect. A more specific description might, however.

I agree that it is a good research topic, though, perhaps using the analytic tool advocated here

Gotta say, you've changed my mind on this one. thanks much.

YW but to be clear, you might be correct. A more specific description is going to lead to more false negatives, so there might be circumstances in which providing a more specific description might be a bad idea, depending on how important it is to avoid false negatives (eg maybe when hunting a terrorist with a nuke)

To be clear, you've changed my mind from "this is clearly pseudoscience" to "it's possible this could be a net positive, more research needed."

Ah, gotcha

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