site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 27, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

3.1 THE BAMBOO CEILING: There is asian overrepresentation in every field involving intelligence and a bamboo ceiling in every subfield requiring a personality. To give one example from reuters:

Isn't this subject to the college admissions counterpoint: i.e. that, just like colleges use "soft skills" to discriminate against otherwise intellectually overachieving Asians - and Jews before them- to serve other ends , so do businesses (or businesses downstream of this tendency pick it up as a result)?

Thus Asians may funnel themselves more into fields with more objective criteria to avoid this issue? (or the downsides of not having social connections)

More likely, the bamboo ceiling just reflects generational effects. East Asians flooded elite law schools only in recent years, it's basically a decade to make partner at most big firms and then you stay for life, so what you're seeing isn't really underrepresentation (though Asian associates will claim it is hoping to get some help) it's just the difference a decade makes.

Yes, it could be. Depends on your priors on the prevalence of bigotry. Is Harvard is just saying Asians have no personality to justify excluding them or is Harvard is excluding them because they have no personalities? That's why I selected Law as a comparative example, where to the extent that soft metrics are being used for evaluation, those doing so are personally acquainted with those they are judging. If an admissons officer says, this kid has no personality, maybe he's meeting a quota. If your boss that's seen you grind for six years before partnership consideration time says, he's cool and all but God I'm not gonna put him in front of clients or juries - this is far more dispositive.