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 what makes it an inferential distance. I've been running into the same problem for a while. It's not hard to show that there is a difference; see the conversation starting here for a recent example. What's hard is being understood across the gap, because there's a massive number of assumptions that aren't shared, and so can't be used to build a common understanding. What you get is people either rounding you to agreement, or people assuming you're talking out your ass. Neither are productive, and solutions have to date been elusive. I've got an effort-post about a third of the way written that I'm hoping might help, we'll see how it goes if I can get it finished.
The first time I heard the term was a progressive in our community saying something like "if you believe this, the inferential distance is so great that I don't think I can bridge the gap". I don't remember what "this" was referring to, but it was something so basic that it was obvious to me it will be hard for a person that believes it to understand where person who believes the opposite of it is coming from.
By contrast any time Hlynka tries to show where the inferential gap is, I'm just flabbergasted at why he thinks the modal Mottizen disagrees with him on it. I'm sure there are a handful of Rousseauians running around here somewhere, but to use that as an example of core disagreement from which all misunderstandings between us and him sprout from is absurd. People might not hop on the Hobbes train, but I'm pretty sure the majority would at least agree Rousseau was wrong.
That, combined with his characterization of specific majority opinions here ("the vast majority of users here would have dismissed as an absurd conspiracy theory") makes me think that either the inferential gap does not exist, and the conflict between us and him is imagined, or it does exist, and he's failing to understand us at least as much as we're misunderstanding him.
Is that an example of inferential distance, or an example of object level disagreement? I feel like "Enlightenment bad" is something reasonable people can disagree over. I can see why the exchange you linked was frustrating to you, but I don't think it's due to some fundamental misunderstanding, as much as simple stubbornness that often comes up in internet debates.
I am looking forward to your effort post on the subject though, maybe you'll have better luck shedding light on this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link