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 -
In the 60s, when this letter was apparently written, real science on intelligence has most certainly already been done. This was already decades after Galton, Spearman, Cattell, Terman, just to name a few. Just read the Jensen’s seminal article of 1969, and observe that by then, most of our current understanding of intelligence has already been established. We already knew about positive manifold, g-factor, heritability, polygenicity, impact of assortative mating, inbreeding depression, adoption studies, twin studies (including twins reared apart, he quotes a study from 1937), and, ultimately, race gaps and the fundamental constant of sociology.
In fact, I can scarcely come up with something that’s really material to our today’s understanding of intelligence, but has not been known already and mentioned by Jensen in 1969. Only thing that comes to my mind is Flynn effect, but this one is, arguably, quite irrelevant for most intents and purposes (because Flynn gains are hollow, so they do not represent material differences in intelligence, and are rather mostly indicative of the deficiency of our research tools). Really, since then we have mostly just been filling the gaps using better data and better statistical methods.
More options
Context Copy link