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 -
That's not uncharitable, that's how the overwhelming majority of people operate, including - and perhaps especially - those who claim to be updating on data. Non-HBDers don't suddenly become HBDers when you show them a bunch of twin studies, BLMers don't switch the target of their ire from cops to criminals when you show them the crime victimization rates, and for that matter atheists don't become Catholic when you show them the data that prayer and church attendance does have a positive impact on your psychological health, and that's exactly how it should be!
By saying "no data will change my mind" Meghan Murphy is being honest about this being a values disagreement, and saving you time that you'd waste on digging out studies, which won't have an impact on the discussion. More people should follow her example, to be honest.
There's nothing wrong with having a values disagreement but Meghan is not being honest about her stance here. If she was then she wouldn't be citing studies and evidence to argue her point, only to retreat back into the values cave when pressed.
"Retreat" implies she staked her position on data being on her side, and I don't see where she did that.
Yes she did, many times! Anytime she cites the experience of women she talked to about the industry, that's data. I even asked her and quoted her explanation for how she arrived at her position to begin with.
Using data as a supporting argument is not the same thing as staking your position on it. The latter is a lot closer to Aellas approach than Murphy's.
That was the "I talked to some women who left sexwork" bit, right? Again, that's not staking your position on data.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with that, to a point. But if someone tells you that no evidence would convince them they're wrong, there is no point in having an evidence-based discussion with them.
I don't think this is entirely true, I agree that for most people (even here) that most of the data driven arguments they claim are the reason for their beliefs are actually post-hoc rationalizations. We feel first and rationalize second. It isn't deliberate, our conscious mind supports what our unconscious has already decided.
Having said that, because of that people don't actually know which arguments might change their beliefs once they internalize them. They might claim nothing will change their mind, but because changing your mind is the unconscious process they do not actually know when an argument will make them change until after it happens.
Someone can truly believe that no amount of evidence will convince them of X and be wrong because the act of being convinced is for some 99.5% of people (in my estimation) an entirely unconscious act. So whether you can change someone's mind may well be entirely orthogonal to whether they believe their mind can be changed. It's not easy or common to change a mind, but I am not convinced the individual themselves can give you much information about what arguments would persuade them.
More options
Context Copy link
But she never came into it saying it's an evidence based conversation.
When you lead with "but studies show..." type arguments, it's at least implied. Later flipping to "but it's an ethical question, it's not about data" as soon as her empirical case starts to look dodgy does feel like a dishonest bait-and-switch, even if that's her real position and thus, from a narrow point of view, more honest.
I don't think she did that though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One of these things is not like the others: atheists don't necessarily disagree with the data. If you show a non-HBDer twin studies, presumably they'll try to disagree with them because they agree that to believe in the worldview modelled by the studies would "compel" them to become a HBDer, which they don't want for social censure. Ie. there are preferences attached to their beliefs. But if an atheist believes that Christians are more mentally healthy, this does not compel him to believe in God. Why would it? I mean, it's absolutely a value difference, but it's a value difference that isn't hooked to that part of the world model.
Fine, atheists don't start going to church and start praying after seeing the data.
I mean yeah? I'm pretty happy with my mental health, I don't see an urgent need to improve it. If my mental health was in the shitter, I'd keep church in the back of my mind.
(That's assuming it is causal, which I think would be hard to demonstrate.)
More options
Context Copy link
Well, there's another difference. I might believe that praying and going to church is good for the mental health of people who believe in God. That doesn't mean it would do me any good if I don't believe in God.
(This is pretty close to my actual position. I think the positive power of a community and a sincere belief that there's an omnipotent being who loves you personally probably is good for someone's mental health. That doesn't convince me that the omnipotent being exists, or that pretending to believe in him would make me feel better.)
Right, so that would be a situation where both sides can reconcile data with their beliefs, no matter what the data says.... which is exactly like the debate on porn.
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