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 -
But why should I do this if, as posited, I have good reason to think that the data sucks?
Let me give a sort-of example from my own area of expertise. It's not actually a data-driven field; it's very deterministic mathematical theory. For decades now, people have been solving certain problems one way, using one method. The method has significant flaws. Some of the flaws are well-known; others, more damning ones in my mind, are just being revealed now. (I hate to say it, but it truly is, "Being revealed by a series of papers in which I'm a coauthor." I can lessen the arrogant-sounding sting a little bit by wholeheartedly acknowledging that it was a collaborator, not me, who came up with the initial counter-example that kicked off the whole shebang.)
We've been able to fix the problem, using a completely different method (established in a different context)... but so far, only for one specific version. There are numerous other variants of the problem. The thing is, for several of these variants that we've looked at, I can demonstrate that the (very bad) problem exists! I can show actual examples demonstrating why and how the prior methods fail to do what we had previously expected them to do. But we haven't yet 'fixed the glitch' for all these other variants (working on it!).
In sum, I know the bounds of what the prior method actually accomplishes, but I also now know what it doesn't accomplish. This has been hard for some people I've talked to in the field to grok, because they're so steeped in the old method. (I've had this conversation quite a few times, and it really breaks their brains at first, but if I get them to really focus on a particular example and I get them to really consider what would happen with the counterexample, I have a 100% rate of convincing them so far (profs in the field).) If someone were to say something like, "Yeah, ok, well, we know the prior method isn't perfect, but there's nothing better yet for this particular version of the problem, so let's provisionally accept it and go from there," I'm going to say, "HELLS NO!" Instead, I'm likely going to go find a particular counterexample for this variant, show exactly how the existing method is broken for this variant, and simply say, "We can't actually proceed further until we fix this."
I know this is shrouded in a small amount of mystery, but it's related, because we want to say, "Method/data says X." We think that, "Method/data says X." But it turns out that the method/data actually only says Y... which turns out to be very far from actually saying X. I'm not going to provisionally hold X when it pretty clearly says only Y and we don't actually have proper evidence for X.
More options
Context Copy link