site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31616 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All of his criticisms are on point, though. Those are all bad habits, and they're all endemic, and by framing it as a personal statement, he leaves people free to apply the statements to themselves as they personally consider it appropriate. A lot of posts I've written are obviously guilty of the things he's pointing out, and are the worse for them.

"Poking fun" is always risky business under the rules anyway, but the criticism you've assembled here barely rises above the level of pure, vapid sneer.

I strongly disagree, as one of the people the post was most obviously aimed at. Cogent criticism is valuable, and this is, in fact, cogent criticism.

All of his criticisms are on point, though.

Surely you don't actually mean that?

I was a bit hesitant on the mod button, for all the reasons I already mentioned. I recognize that there is some hyperbole there, and some humor, and some self-deprecation, and I always feel a bit schoolmarmish wagging a finger at that sort of thing. But like--

Literature references. Point score is directly correlated with obscurity; actually having read the the work in question is optional. Bonus points for linking SSC pieces, double bonus points if they're from 2016 or earlier.

What's the "on point" criticism, here--that we quote Scott too much? What's the "bad habit"--that we don't actually read the books we quote from and talk about? (This seems clearly false!)

The fact that we have our own status games is interesting, and worth talking about. And there are surely times and places to enjoy an amusing roast. But a lot of the stuff in this list is not actually bad, and most of the rest is unobjectionable if stripped of the pejoration and mockery. To treat e.g. complex vocabulary as a signal of low status is textbook anti-intellectualism. Yes, some people use big words strictly to appear smart, but treating people that way without further evidence requires an uncharitable take on their motives. Writing lengthy posts is frequently mocked in many places on the internet, but some problems are complex and demand extended reflection--assuming you want to do more than make a joke at someone else's expense. While many of the attitudes called out in this post are indeed counterproductive or otherwise objectionable, most of the behaviors are not in themselves problematic, particularly given a charitable interpretation of the writer's intent. If we're going to criticize such behaviors, we should do it in a thoughtful way--not by resorting to mockery that seems crafted to shame others away from effortful participation and thoughtful discussion.

It's not very fair if it's taken as a generalization about what we're doing here. It's absolutely on point as a description of how we do it wrong – not the only failure mode of this community, especially after the move, when we've gained some cocksure low-effort right-wingers, but the most prevalent one among the old guard. I agree 100% with @FCfromSSC that this list is a self-improvement opportunity for me.

Yes, some people use big words strictly to appear smart, but treating people that way without further evidence requires an uncharitable take on their motives.

Which is itself a problem with rationalists. In order to properly deal with people, you need to be able to conclude bad faith, and you need to be able to do this based on less than 100% clear evidence, because false negatives are as damaging as false positives. This is where quokkas come from--rationalists refusing to realistically consider the possibility that someone is acting in bad faith. We say "be charitable" because a lot of people aren't charitable enough, but there are also people who are too charitable and should ignore that advice (and it's hard to aim advice at only the people who need it.)

And here, it's not even just about bad faith. When someone uses big words that aren't needed for his point, he may be acting in bad faith, or he may just be bad at communicating. But even if he's an honest person who's just bad at communicating, he's still bad at it; it's not behavior we want to emulate, and it still deserves criticizing. If doing things poorly is low status, then yes, this is low status--communicating poorly is something we want to avoid.

Quokka is "rationalist who doesn't question progressive ideas like universal love and tolerance, gender and race equality, .....", not "rationalist who argues with trolls because they might be good faith". Having extended arguments with bad faith trolls doesn't really hurt you beyond wasting small amounts of time, whereas earnestly believing in universal love and sacrifice-for-all-humans-equally means your fortune or life is spent helping Open Philanthropy buy malaria nets instead of some other worthier cause.

edit: I might be wrong about the use of the term quokka, but still pretty sure 'arguing with bad faith trolls' isn't particularly bad.

A quokka is a creature that doesn't realize that people might want to hurt it. The metaphor from there is fairly direct.

You love this... hard-to-pin-down pattern of reasoning, and I don't love to have to keep asking you not do it. Nevertheless here we go again.

Quokka is "rationalist who doesn't question progressive ideas like universal love and tolerance, gender and race equality, .....", not "rationalist who argues with trolls because they might be good faith".

The explicit definition of quokka as a mental archetype is the guy who does not account for bad faith of other parties. It's not about wasting time on trolls on anonymous forums, per se. But it absolutely is about a robust mode of engagement with bad actors.

Here's the original thread by 0x49fa98. Here are the most relevant parts:

The quokka, like the rationalist, is a creature marked by profound innocence. The quokka can't imagine you might eat it, and the rationalist can't imagine you might deceive him. As long they stay on their islands, they survive, but both species have problems if a human shows up

In theory, rationalists like game theory, in practice, they need to adjust their priors. Real-life exchanges can be modeled as a prisoner's dilemma. In the classic version, the prisoners can't communicate, so they have to guess whether the other player will defect or cooperate. ...

The problem is, this is where rationalists hit a mental stop sign. Because in the real world, there is one more strategy that the game doesn't model: lying. See, the real best strategy is "be good at lying so that you always convince your opponent to cooperate, then defect"

Rationalists = quokkas, this explains a lot about them. Their fear instincts have atrophied. When a quokka sees a predator, he walks right up; when a rationalist talks about human biodiversity on a blog under almost his real name, he doesn't flinch away ...

The main way that you stop being a quokka is that that you realize there are people in the world who really want to hurt you. There are people who will always defect, people whose good will is fake, whose behavior will not change if they hear the good news of reciprocity

I think Bostromgate is a good illustration.

Quokka is "rationalist who doesn't question progressive ideas like universal love and tolerance", not "rationalist who argues with trolls because they might be good faith".

It's both, actually. I've seen the latter argued numerous times by right-wingers, specifically about right-wing trolls.

Right-wingers arguing that rationalists ... shouldn't listen to right-wing trolls?

Right-wingers arguing that rationalists should ban right-wing trolls more or less on sight, yes. Have you not seen this?

I was wrong about the meaning of 'quokka' in zhp's original use, but i'm still not entirely sure what you mean?

A right-wing troll comes in here. maybe it's a julius branson alt, and starts trolling. mods give the troll a warning. Hlynka puts forward the opinion that they should proceed to permaban, because it's obviously a troll.

Surely you don't actually mean that?

I can and do. I assure you that my next effort-post will be better if, before I post it, I compare it to that list and edit accordingly.

What's the "on point" criticism, here--that we quote Scott too much? What's the "bad habit"--that we don't actually read the books we quote from and talk about? (This seems clearly false!)

That here, too, one's reference game being on-point can cover for a startling lack of engagement with the concepts behind those references. Further, that style trumping substance is always a danger, and one way it happens is by cribbing from better authors to provide gravitas to an argument that it cannot generate under its own power. There are a number of writers here who possess above-average rhetorical style, but style is not truth, and forgetting that is a constant danger for all of us.

While many of the attitudes called out in this post are indeed counterproductive or otherwise objectionable, most of the behaviors are not in themselves problematic, particularly given a charitable interpretation of the writer's intent.

...I see it exactly flipped. The behaviors are not in and of themselves problematic, but when combined with a poor attitude or mindset, they're counterproductive and objectionable. And while it might be uncharitable to accuse individual posters, noting the problem in aggregate seems like a reasonable way to express what is, at the end of the day, a complaint about general atmosphere. General atmosphere matters here; our rules are drafted explicitly to protect it, and changes for the worse are worth noting and pointing out.

General atmosphere matters here; our rules are drafted explicitly to protect it, and changes for the worse are worth noting and pointing out.

Yes--but with kindness, and charity.

Insofar as general atmosphere matters here, "you should be ashamed of your vocabulary, verbosity, and valuing of intellect over emotion" is not a vibe that should be cultivated.

If your vocabulary is being used poorly--and excessive wordiness is using it poorly--you should be ashamed of it, at least to the extent that you should be ashamed of doing things badly at all.

Insofar as general atmosphere matters here, "you should be ashamed of your vocabulary, verbosity, and valuing of intellect over emotion" is not a vibe that should be cultivated.

All I can say is that I did not read it as a general condemnation of those traits, and still don't. It probably helps that I have been very clearly guilty of several of these, and agree that they are problems, so it strikes me as less an attack and more just necessary truth delivered with some humor.

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