site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28112 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 18, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Look man, you and I have been doing this for years. 10 years this October by my count. What do you think my "engaging charitably" would look even like in this context?

So is your excuse simply that this shit is your nature and no amount of educational efforts can fix you? A bit inconsistent given the argument you advance, innit?

So is your excuse simply that this shit is your nature and no amount of educational efforts can fix you?

No, I'm saying some level of reciprocity is required, or proverbial carrot provided, if you want me to choose "cooperate" after the other guys have already chosen "defect".

I actually recall the precise moment the switch flipped, and I stopped considering the HBDers here worthy of engagement. It was summer of 2021 during CW discussion of the NFL's "race norming" scandal and a number prominent HBDers (including a few who are still active today) defended the practice of artificially lowering the scores of high performing black individuals as necessary to "improve accuracy". After all if HBD is true, and a black man scored well it must be because the test was flawed and not because that individual black man in question might have actually been smart.

I pointed out that that if you have data that falsifies a theory, you're supposed to update the theory not the data, only to receive a bunch of downvotes, snide comments about my lack of intellectual bone-fides, and lectures about distributions, set theory, etc... Yet the whole time the simple fact that these guys were (by their own admission) editing observational data to support a pre-arrived-at conclusion was sitting there staring me in the face. Given that, why would I trust anything further they had to say?

That out of the way I will give you a chance to start a new hopefully more cooperative cycle by offering you (and anyone else who cares to chime in) the same basic case against HBD that I've been making since we started having these discussions in the open comments section of SSC.com.

HBDers like to claim individual and environmental factors largely don't matter and that everything can be boiled down to genetics. When I observe the world around me, I find that exceedingly hard to believe. My go-to example is that someone can have all the genetic potential in the world and still end up a flabby bastard if they don't eat well or work-out. Or in the case of the linked thread, all the genetic potential in the world isn't going to make a kid read well if nobody teaches them to read. From these simple observations I have arrived at the conclusion that the effect sizes of individual/environmental factors like having an engaged adult who teaches the kid to read, or getting off one's ass and going to the gym are far more predictive of outcome, and thus must have substantially greater effect sizes than that of genetics assuming such effects exist at all.

The replies I get (assuming anyone engages at all) are typically something along the lines of "Maybe, but if we control for all those other factors, genetics will be the only one left". And that's often where the conversation, breaks down because they haven't actually adressed my claim about effect sizes, they're just explaining what the term "Controlling for" means.

The statement that "If we eliminate all considerations that are not X, X will be the only consideration remaining." Is a tautology, not a proof that "X" is true, or that "X" is more meaningful than "Y".

It was summer of 2021 during CW discussion of the NFL's "race norming" scandal and a number prominent HBDers (including a few who are still active today) defended the practice of artificially lowering the scores of high performing black individuals as necessary to "improve accuracy

This is incorrect. There was a billion dollar lawsuit, and in a settlement the NFL had to pay based on estimates of the loss in cognitive function caused by concussions. The 'race-norming' was assuming that black people (with concussions) started from lower IQs than white people, to reduce the NFL's payouts. Which is reasonable, because large-scale IQ testing of black people does find they have lower IQs. They are not claiming that the black person is 'too smart', and his IQ should be adjusted down. They're claiming that he has the average IQ of a black person, not a white person, and thus his score of (past IQ - current IQ), i.e. his IQ loss, should be adjusted down. Again, you persistently mischaracterize the statements of your opponents, instead of engaging with their arguments.

My go-to example is that someone can have all the genetic potential in the world and still end up a flabby bastard if they don't eat well or work-out

Can you make a direct analogy for the cases of education and income here, so we can address it directly?

Or in the case of the linked thread, all the genetic potential in the world isn't going to make a kid read well if nobody teaches them to read

It's very relevant that we have phones, school-provided tablets, libraries, and closed-caption tv shows. These massively equalize the 'environment' people experience relative to the past!

The replies I get (assuming anyone engages at all) are typically something along the lines of "Maybe, but if we control for all those other factors, genetics will be the only one left". And that's often where the conversation, breaks down because they haven't actually adressed my claim about effect sizes, they're just explaining what the term "Controlling for" means.

What's an intervention that you think would have a comparable effect size to genetics?

This is incorrect. There was a billion dollar lawsuit,

To be clear, I'm not talking about the lawsuit, I'm talking about the culture war thread discussion about the lawsuit.

...and there is no need to "assume" anything because the NFL has a Wonderlic Score for every player who's entered the league since 1968.

As I argued at the time, adjusting Tomlinson's Wonderlic score down because he's Black is about as central an example of old-school "racism" as it's possible to come by these days.

Hm. I highly doubt the exchange occurred as you describe, because the IQ tests were taken post-concussion and were very low and already had basically nothing to do with baseline black IQ. But if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

HBDers like to claim individual and environmental factors largely don't matter and that everything can be boiled down to genetics. When I observe the world around me, I find that exceedingly hard to believe. My go-to example is that someone can have all the genetic potential in the world and still end up a flabby bastard if they don't eat well or work-out. Or in the case of the linked thread, all the genetic potential in the world isn't going to make a kid read well if nobody teaches them to read. From these simple observations I have arrived at the conclusion that the effect sizes of individual/environmental factors like having an engaged adult who teaches the kid to read, or getting off one's ass and going to the gym are far more predictive of outcome, and thus must have a greater effect size than genetics assuming such effects are measurable at all.

You do seem to just ignore those of us who are proponents of HBD and don't fall into this obvious trap. Yes, the environment also matters, no this does not actually disprove HBD and it is ridiculous to assume it does for the same reason a dump trunk being able to plow through a barricade does not prove barricades to have no efficacy. The world is more complicated than only one thing being able to contribute to an outcome. The HBD position is not that HBD has a greater effect size than environment, this is trivially proved by the ability to deprive babies of oxygen enough to leave them mentally handicapped. The HBD position is that genetics matter at all and vary between groups.

You do seem to just ignore those of us who are proponents of HBD and don't fall into this obvious trap.

You know what, it's fair cop, and if I have that's on me. Mea Culpa. At the same time the immediat question that springs to my mind is where have you been? Why haven't you been weighing in? Is this one of those "no enemies to the left" type situations, or have you been weighing in this whole time and I just haven't seen it?

I've probably commented on HBD threads on the motte several dozen times over the years and remember replying directly to you more than a couple times.

Edit: here I am about a month ago pushing back in the same topic.

Here I am clarifying that HBD need not be able racial supremacy

As far as no enemies on the left goes, I work at a mega bank and some groups of leftists have expressed to me a desire to have me take a place in front of a wall. I know you have a kind fo esoteric understanding of left VS right but I assure you that I recognize enemies to my left.

I stopped considering the HBDers here worthy of engagement.

If you don't consider HBDers worthy of engagement, then stop engaging with me. Stop tagging me in comments as part of conversations I'm not part of.

I don't want to interact with you ever again in any capacity, but you're the one who keeps forcing the issue. Just stop interacting with me and we can go our separate ways.

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