site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29468 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Crippling college applications to psychology programs is probably a net positive for both the students and the society. Keep the AP engineering and physics, encourage bright and ambitious kids to go there instead.

Unless colleges themselves start dropping Gen Ed requirements (which they should), AP courses of nonsense subjects are incredibly useful because they let you bypass them in college. I took AP Psychology and AP Government in highschool, they were mostly pointless, I passed the exam, and then when I went to college I had two fewer useless class eating my time and money so I could learn math and physics. (I also took AP classes for some of those too, but that just let me fastforward to more advanced ones in my major)

I certainly didn't have any psych requirement when I was in college. YMMV.

What about the ambitious but intellectually average students who excel in AP psych? What of their greatness?

I am of course sure that the answer from motteizeans is going to be ‘fuck em, don’t insist on educational opportunities you’re not smart enough to take advantage of’, but that ship sailed a long long time ago in America.

What about the ambitious but intellectually average students who excel in AP psych?

They still should not engage with political statements masquerading as science. Be more honest and take AP Poly Sci instead.

Apparently there is now AP precalculus. Just go with the flow and make everything AP.

I'm generally opposed to lowering standards but given that many colleges do offer a precalculus level course that counts for college credit this is probably a good thing

Wasn’t the whole point of AP courses to transcend the limitations of the standard high school curriculum - which should include precalculus in some form?

But if you’re good at precalculus you already don’t have to take it in college. It’s not “advanced placement”, it’s normal placement.

They'll benefit the most from being steered towards something useful instead.

I'm frequently confused by the opprobrium that gets elicited by academic psychology.

Do you think that the concept of psychology is fine, but it's just been irredeemably corrupted by political bias? Or do you think that there should be some sort of systematic study of human thought and behavior, but the methods currently employed by psychology (even in their most idealized form) are inadequate to the task? Or do you think that there should simply be no institutionalized study of human thought and behavior at all?

Have you.. met a psychology grad?

If yes, ask them if they are employed.

But the question then becomes as what? How many of them are employed in a useful job that makes use of their intellectual capacity? I think the same of humanities and liberal arts, they tend not to be employed at high level jobs.

To answer the original question, I think psychology should be replaced more or less by neurological sciences. It’s not wrong to ask why humans do what they do, but psychology lacks rigor and empirical studies that are common in other fields. In short, if it were held to the same standards as other sciences, it would probably be seen as unscientific.

Psychology because of the lack of rigor has unleashed a lot of problems. The advice they give is generally bad for relatively normal people, as it tends to cause people to overthink their feelings and turn them into facts. A person who’s depressed and goes to therapy will be told that their feelings are true and valid, and to focus on feelings. You tell them to feel better. But if you’re focused on the lies your brain is telling you, then you’ll take them at face value. And for normal people, the approach tends to create pathology as people try to be happy, and when something goes wrong, fall to pieces because they’ve been taught that they’re fragile. This leads to anxiety, depression, and other mental illnesses, or to turning a fleeting into a full blown identity.

Or do you think that there should simply be no institutionalized study of human thought and behavior at all?

I might agree with that. I think we're very lucky the whole thing ended up to be sham so far, the moment they crack the mystery of the human mind, we're getting, for all intents and purposes, enslaved.

I'm frequently confused by the opprobrium that gets elicited by academic psychology.

The entire edifice is and always has been based entirely on fraud. The field as a whole has probably been the most influential branch of "science" in terms of direct social and political impact. Its theories having driven the mass-rewriting of large portions of our society, despite being unmitigated bullshit. That influence is entirely the result of systematic lying on the part of its practitioners and advocates, who have never honestly engaged with or accounted for their failures. Its history is my go-to example for why the Enlightenment is a bad idea, and why rationalist positivism of the sort endorsed by @fuckduck9000 in our ongoing debates is foolish and self-destructive: it demonstrates that motivated lying outperforms truth-seeking in Enlightened, rationalist societies hands-down and for arbitrary lengths of time.

Do you think that the concept of psychology is fine, but it's just been irredeemably corrupted by political bias?

What, in your view, is the "concept" of psychology? Because from where I'm sitting, the concept is and always has been "come up with a story for how the brain works and why that means society has to be changed to match your preferences, fake some evidence, smear dissenters as anti-science luddites, claim the resulting disaster proves you should be granted more power".

Or do you think that there should be some sort of systematic study of human thought and behavior, but the methods currently employed by psychology (even in their most idealized form) are inadequate to the task?

That seems accurate. People can study whatever they want, so long as they're honest about what the evidence actually shows and where its limits are. Psychology has never been able to do that.

Or do you think that there should simply be no institutionalized study of human thought and behavior at all?

If forced to choose between what we've actually gotten and no study at all, I'd happily choose no study at all. It seems obvious to me that the field as a whole has been strongly net-negative for its entire history.

I think your criticism of psychology would actually be true of most of the university endeavor. It’s no longer a place (outside of extremely hard sciences) of dispassionately going where the evidence leads. Most of the research done in soft “sciences” or humanities is much more about finding the answers you actually want, or in twisting texts and history to tell the narrative of human nature the way you need it to be to get the outcome you want.

And this, I personally believe is why so much of modern society has gone off the rails as compared to our ancestors. When issue advocates can sneak their pet ideas into the narrative by publishing them in a academic journals, teach them unopposed in college classrooms, and slowly trickled out to broader society without them having to meet even the sniff-test of replication (which is not exactly a high bar anyway, but more of a fraud and absolute bullshit detection method). When people believe untrue things, and act as if they are true, society in general declines, and unless it’s stopped, it collapses into the sea of ignorance and superstition. And on the way out, it creates absolute human misery as people do things that don’t work, create cultures that don’t achieve, and so on.

Real, rigorous study has never actually failed when applied honestly. Nations who value it tend to punch very high above their weight given their populations and natural resources. Jews without a state for thousands of years managed to punch so far above their weight that people needed to invent conspiracies to explain it. The cultures of East Asia following Confucius managed to produce great civilizations even in places like Japan where there weren’t a lot of natural resources to sell.

Do you think that the concept of psychology is fine, but it's just been irredeemably corrupted by political bias?

Yes.

the methods currently employed by psychology (even in their most idealized form) are inadequate to the task?

Yes. Most effective research into the realm is now currently banned as unethical.

In principle, I could imagine that it would be an actual scientific field. I don't have any idea how to get it there though, and I don't think anyone else does either. If people want to tinker with that on private dollars, more power to them. For what it's worth, I value non-scientific insights from psychologists that don't dress their work up with fake scientific rigor. At this time, I think subsidies for both academic and clinical psychology are a net draw on society though.

More to the point, I would strongly advise any bright, enterprising student to pick another field, either one that's more ruminative or one with more scientific rigor. Eliminating AP Psychology, hopefully, would be a step towards nudging kids in that direction.

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