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 -
This is one of my favorite things about the Motte--that so many of us have this shared experience with being mystified by the overwhelming prevalence of unreflective dogmatism and group identity. I most strongly identified with right-wing politics when the right was preaching small government and libertarianism, but Republicans can't seem to keep sight of their own principles once they land a spot in the federal government. I most strongly identified with leftist politics when the left was using things like free speech and atheism to undermine opposition, but once the "religious right" receded sufficiently for the left to capture the White House, suddenly it was all about embracing Islam and banning "hate speech."
I've long since given up hope that intelligent people will ever be allowed to intelligently govern the United States of America. I assume this is at least in part because even the intelligent people who manage to get elected or appointed or hired into important positions seem inevitably to get captured in short order by Moloch or some other destructive egregore.
But it's nice to have others with whom to commiserate.
It's not even dogmatism as such - my experience in life is that most extremely dogmatic people are actually relatively intelligent. It takes a certain baseline level of intelligence coupled with a sense of intellectual rigour to be really dogmatic. If you've put in the effort to understand a large system of doctrine and to commit yourself to it, you need to understand lots of ideas, how those ideas inter-relate, and so on. You can't do that if you're not intelligent enough to think in an abstract way.
The true fanatics for a set of dogmas can be very frustrating, but I don't think 'stupid' is the word I would use for them.
What somehow still manages to surprise me when it comes to general stupidity is how unreflective most people are, and how unwilling they are to engage in even the most cursory checks on the consistency of their own beliefs. They just float around and believe whatever seems to be convenient or trendy, and if you try to ask for consistency, for them to relate any of their ideas to each other, they either get angry or immediately retreat to some sort of cliché about how people should just live and let live.
There comes a point where I want to shake someone and yell, "But those things you've said contradict! You can't hold all those things at once! The jigsaw doesn't fit together! You have no idea what you're saying!"
I actually have a half-written effort-post sitting on my desktop that I've been trying to decide whether to post. I'm reluctant in part for privacy reasons, but also because I can't decide whether there's any value to it beyond me carping about people I know.
But to describe the post as presently constituted, basically it's mostly vignettes of conversations I've had with colleagues over the past couple years. These are people with PhDs in a variety of fields--English, Biology, Math, quite a variety really--who in the space of a single conversation have expressed to me totally contradictory things without seeming to notice. And in one case when I actually took the time to point this out, I was told--as if this made any sense at all in the context of logical contradiction--"well maybe in theory, but I'm more of a practical thinker."
I'm sure there are inconsistencies in my beliefs, insofar as I have any; I have the quokka's curse of always suspecting myself to be wrong. It's not the inconsistencies that worry me. What worries me is the casual way people encounter these inconsistencies in their own speech, and seem to either not notice or not care, as if they haven't even been listening to themselves. I know there are a lot of people who find the rationalsphere's apparent obsession with "signalling" tiresome, but I can't think of a better explanation for what most people seem to be doing most of the time when I talk to them. They want to signal intellect, or group membership, or status... but they simply do not value truth or logical consistency in any discernible way. "Social signalling" is the strongest hypothesis I've encountered for vast swathes of human interaction. And I don't even mind too terribly, when it's not actively frustrating my goals--sociability is an important advantage of our species--but I do not enjoy being reminded that it is rare even for highly intelligent or highly educated individuals to be able to consistently see beyond the signals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don't worry to much about intelligent people controlling the levers of power; because intelligence has no correlation with values.
There are intelligent people everywhere at all times on all sides; Eg, I would bet dollars to donuts that the smartest presidents were Jefferson, FDR, and Adams, and they are all wildly different in terms of political philosophy.
This is surely true, but I do often seriously suspect that my outgroup's values, intelligently executed, would still result in a better world than my ingroup's values, foolishly executed. And I don't even get that, what I get instead is a world where almost everyone's values are totally decoupled from their actions and people just go through life giving each other powerful electrical shocks all the time but no one can afford to defect from the status quo.
Ah, the human condition! What a pain in the ass.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed! That's why I love the Motte, and rationalists more generally. Sometimes I do wish I could fall into the mindless dogmatism camp though. Being a contrarian skeptic can be quite personally difficult sometimes!
Lack of certainty is great for getting at the truth, but humans are much happier (I'd imagine) when they have certainty.
More options
Context Copy link
Intelligent people who get elected do it by saying things that unintelligent people want to hear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link