site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36040 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 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.

Congratulations. You reinvented measuring how good a programmer is by measuring how many lines of code he produces.

Bodycount is meaningless metric. Just some people are desperate for something to measure to be able to do a quick discard.

  • -20

Bodycount is meaningless metric.

What an interesting hypothesis. It'd be a shame if someone were to... test it.

Let's say I have a graph that shows "Divorce rate vs. number of pre-marriage sexual partners". Do you think the correlation will be positive or negative?

The answer may surprise you! (Lolno, it won't surprise anyone)

Without graph for hotness ... it doesn't mean much. An explanation for this graph is that the ugly and unfuckable are so out of options that divorce is pointless for them.

I don't understand your objection. If body count is correlated to divorce rate, then a high body count woman has a higher chance of divorcing you than a low body count woman, by definition.

Looking at an r=0.8 correlation and responding "Ah-ha but maybe the correlation would be r=0.9 if you control for hotness"... The fact that you can speculate on the existence of a hypothetical better study doesn't remove meaning from the existing study!

Lizzardspawn is saying that 40%~ of women polled with low body counts aren't divorcing because they can't abandon the one guy who was willing to take them. So, the common cause of low divorce rate and low body counts is desperation, rather than chastity or high relationship ethics.

I do not find this interpretation of the data convincing as, in my experience, 40% of women in their teens and twenties do not struggle to find partners willing to bed them.

On the other hand, a lower number of lifetime partners is probably correlated with marrying younger, which we know correlates with divorce risk on its lonesome. So having that graph in that direction means the effect is strong enough to overcome the correlation between early marriage and divorce.

Aella's recent survey showed women (and men) having many previous partners was the number 1 predictor for them cheating. Previous promiscuity is bad for the vast majority of people and their partners.

Also IIRC #previous partners is actually somewhat anticorrelated to physical attractiveness for women.

Let's say I have a graph that shows "Divorce rate vs. number of pre-marriage sexual partners". Do you think the correlation will be positive or negative?

That's not the divorce rate. That's the ratio of 30yo+ women who've had the same partner for the last five years. This is affected both by the divorce rate and the age at which they got married. Someone who has had only long-term boyfriends since she was 16 might look like this:

  • age: 34

  • number of partners: 3 (16-24, 24-31, 31-now)

  • in a stable relationship: no

Does this mean her current marriage will end up in a divorce? No, not really.

Let's say I have a graph that shows "Divorce rate vs. number of pre-marriage sexual partners". Do you think the correlation will be positive or negative?

Do you think that's mostly a direct causal relationship (having premarital sex directly increases the rate of divorce), or indirect (some common factor both causes people to have premarital sex and also causes them to be more prone to divorce)?

Perhaps a more direct intuition pump. Let's say we have a pair of 30 year old friends. Both are newlyweds (not to each other). One of the friends had 20 sexual partners prior to getting married, which is at the 80th percentile, and the other had 8, which is the median. We should expect the friend with the median number of partners to have around the median chance of divorce within 5 years (around 20% as far as I can tell), and the one at the 80th percentile to have a higher 5-year-divorce chance (~35% if my slightly sketchy sources are right, but the exact number isn't really important).

Now take the exact same scenario, but instead of friends they're identical twins. Do you expect that the twin who had more partners is 1.5x to 2x more likely to divorce within the next five years? I personally don't particularly expect that, just because I expect that divorce rates are quite strongly driven by heritable factors rather than environmental ones.

Do you think that's mostly a direct causal relationship (having premarital sex directly increases the rate of divorce), or indirect (some common factor both causes people to have premarital sex and also causes them to be more prone to divorce)?

Direct. The more pair-bonding you do with different people, the less you are capable of psychologically investing in the next one. And if you can't psychologically invest in your spouse, you're gonna have a bad time.

Still there's gonna be a bunch of cultural/behavioral confounders.

I don't doubt that there's a direct correlation effect, but I'd also be surprised if there wasn't a significant case of lower pre-marital partners amongst a plethora of cultural & religious groups who marry young and don't really divorce.

I don't think bodycount in of itself is a problem, but having a very high one is indicative of a bunch of other correlated factors.

I suspect that any study of very high body count women(say, top 5%) is going to be dominated by prostitutes, drug users, women who’ve engaged in survival sex, women with a history of mental illness, etc, and that that’s going to confound it all to hell. I also expect that that’s probably not a major affect for women at the 75th percentile.

Both extremes are likely gonna have a bunch of weird correlations, though.

but having a very high one is indicative of a bunch of other correlated factors.

Also, having specifically zero is positively correlated with belonging to a (sub)religion that takes "you don't divorce on a whim" seriously, and usually means your friends and family believe similarly. This is hidden in the discontinuity between 0 and 1, though the effect could be a minor one.

Oh, and the graphs don't necessarily separate one cycle of marriage/divorce from more than one, so women on their second, third, etc. marriages are pretty obviously going to have had more than one partner (unless that was why the marriage ended, but y'know).

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