site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29421 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's a lot of equivocation between words like "Talent", "Merit", "Virtue", but those are all vague terms that are not operationalized. And we're talking about a circular set of definitions when it is. As I've said before, because we use academics as our social sorting mechanism, the ability to do well in school is generally what we're talking about when we say things like "talent" or "merit". And the ability to do well in school is pretty well measured by IQ tests.

But is IQ really "merit"?

Wild aggression and physical violence used to be "merit". Religious devoutness used to be "merit". Having an illustrious bloodline used to be "merit". IQ is no better or worse.

All systems think of themselves as "meritocratic", it's just a matter of what they're optimizing for. To the degree that meritocracy gets at something real, it will by necessity fill the lower ranks of society with those who are low in whatever that characteristic is. And this will be in some cases unjust and counterproductive.

To structure society such that intelligence is privileged over every other human trait is to create a very dumb underclass, and to reduce the average intelligence of the working class as many of the smart kids are siphoned off to the middle classes. It also naturally creates a social division between those who meet the arbitrary and changing benchmarks for "education", and those who do not.

I think universities should be required to choose their student body by setting a SAT cutoff, and having a lottery among applicants who meet the minimum score. Completely blind, random selection. I also think that the university system should be radically smaller than it is, and no more than ten percent of HS graduates should attend. It should also be illegal to use academic information in hiring.

Two things are true:

1: IQ really does measure academic potential and should be used to cull the group trying to get into academia.

2: We overemphasize academics and could do a lot better socially in promoting definitions of merit that are not so limited.

I think meritocracy is a bad name for the concept, as it implies a particular system of organization. When really it's a metric you can apply to any system. And all systems are very much not the same in how meritocratic they are.

To structure society such that intelligence is privileged over every other human trait is to create a very dumb underclass, and to reduce the average intelligence of the working class as many of the smart kids are siphoned off to the middle classes. It also naturally creates a social division between those who meet the arbitrary and changing benchmarks for "education", and those who do not.

And this incongruous with the rest of your post, essentially "meritocracy isn't real, and it's bad that it's real". But yes, depriving lower classes of highly capable representatives is an inevitable consequence of meritocratic systems. I think that's a vastly preferable outcome to forcing these capable people into roles below their potential.

I think this is where the class/income distinction is important. We need highly intelligent lower-class people, because we need highly intelligent people running industries like resource extraction which will never be high class. A role being difficult doesn't make it classy, and a society that siphons off its best production plant operators and logging magnates to become ad-revenue optimizers and theoretical history researchers isn't on a good path long-term.

"Merit" is a term which has different meanings in different places. When "meritocracy" is used seriously, it means something like "the people who are the best in their domain are put at the top of that domain"; it does not mean we choose the President with an IQ test. Both conscientiousness and intelligence contribute to merit in a very large set of circumstances, but they are not in and of themselves "merit". Aggression and physical violence may indeed be meretricious in the right circumstances.

All systems think of themselves as "meritocratic", it's just a matter of what they're optimizing for.

You can frame it that way, but I don't think that's really true. A system which optimized for "being related to the right people" or "best at kissing ass" or "most willing to provide bribes and kickbacks" usually isn't really "meritocratic" though you could come up with criteria by which would could say it was true. This is getting into the non-central fallacy.

Fair as far as it goes, but no system describes itself as based on bribes, kickbacks and ass-kissing.

There is an internal logic to systems, perhaps wrong, perhaps counterproductive, but consistent internally. Any conception of "merit" will be gamed, corrupted and traduced. The proxy for merit will be farmed. In our own system, we see bribes, kickbacks and ass kissing, even though we use IQ as a proxy. I think this process is very central, and not a fringe effect.

If all systems attempt meritocracy, we can still judge them by how well they actually achieve meritocracy.

I think universities should be required to choose their student body by setting a SAT cutoff, and having a lottery among applicants who meet the minimum score.

Depending on the cutoff, this might let this centuries' Einstein slip through the cracks.

Fair as far as it goes, but no system describes itself as based on bribes, kickbacks and ass-kissing.

You forgot "being related to the right people", which affirmative action often explicitly does. Sure, they will bring forth blank slate arguments and explain average differences in ability through intergroup oppression, but seeing how they blockade the scientific subfields that would settle this and their general trouble around distinguishing what would be aesthetically/ morally pleasing to them and what is true makes me doubt their sincerity.

OK, so more systems think of themselves as meritocratic than actually are. I would agree with you that any conception of merit will be corrupted; corruption is a fact of life and human nature. But there are certainly explicitly non-meritocratic systems such as inherited aristocracies, racial spoils systems, or seniority systems.

Those systems tend to be framed as meritocratic internally though.

"Of course the aristocrats should run things, they are literally better than everyone else due to superior breeding (blood)"

"Of course we need to distribute things between the races, they are equal in their merits and so need equal rewards."

"Of course the most experienced people are in charge, they're the best at their job because they know it better than anyone."

Or for the credentialists: "Of course those with the highest credentials should run things, the credentials show that they're the best in their field."

Or for the IQists:

"Of course the smartest should be on top, smarter people are better than everyone else due to their superior inherent abilities."

I can't think of a system which a typical adherent doesn't frame as meritocratic. The question is always how to determine merit, which if you ever hired for a job you know isn't particularly easy.

The Catholic Church does not claim to be meritocratic, it claims divine right.

That is still meritocratic with one extra step; they're meritorious because they've been appointed to the job by God, who's the supreme judge of merit.

And that is not how the Catholic Church conceives of itself either; the leadership being directly chosen by God is foreign to actual members of the church hierarchy.

I think it's a dumb point because 'meritocracy' pretty much always refers to a form of IQ meritocracy (even in a modified way) in regular life. There are a handful of exceptions (modelling, professional sports, performing arts) but in 99% of cases "meritocracy" means "meritocracy of intellectual ability". The term as generally used precludes a focus on non-IQ-based hierarchies for the most part.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability"

I think it does currently in some circles, but generally uses a more all-encompassing definition of merit. The 120 IQ guy who can stay focused and always be on time has more merit than the 130 IQ guy who never shows up or gets anything done. The 100 IQ guy with masterful social charisma has more merit than the 105 IQ guy with anger issues. IQ is a big factor, but not the only one.

In this way, I think merit usually just means "tendency to produce value" in whatever way the institution produces value. Attractiveness for the porn stars, charisma for the salesmen etc. High IQ correlates with all other forms of merit yes, but not extremely strongly so, especially within the range 90% of people fall into. The average used car salesman is a whole lot more charismatic than the average programmer, while the programmer is much smarter.

Hard disagree. The SAT is as close to a perfect blind measure of intelligence as we've got. Why is there such widespread opposition to its use in university admissions? Because a) SAT results are not evenly distributed across ethnic groups, which makes progressives uncomfortable and/or b) SAT results cannot be gamed. So on the one hand you have a system which uses IQ as a proxy for merit, and on the other hand you have people opposing that system specifically because it can't be gamed via affirmative action, legacy admissions etc.

IQ is no better or worse.

I would argue IQ is better as it substantially correlates to job performance in high, medium, and low complexity jobs. All else being equal, companies want a higher IQ programmers, mechanics, and window washers). Perhaps IQ is bet thought of as latent merit.

Your argument is purely economic, and for economics it is largely true. A smart con man can con you better than a dumb one. A smart murderer can kill lots more people than a dumb one.

It's still a con. It's still murder. IQ as merit is amoral.

There exist some evidence that IQ is correlated with good moral character.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16297-intelligent-soldiers-most-likely-to-die-in-battle/

There are also somewhat weak anti-correlation with crime, though I find it easier to argue for confounders there. Nonetheless, low IQ people being more impulsive should alone suffice to show that with equally bad internal character, they're more likely to actually try to do harm. I also have hope that high IQ people are easier to incentivize to do good if you manage to set up the right system.

arbitrary and changing benchmarks for "education"

Are the benchmarks for education really that arbitrary? Mathematical ability is widely prized in every nation which values education, and this has been true for as long as standardised education has been a thing.

Ok, and how well is a random four year college degree correlated to mathematical ability?

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